Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
394
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:10:00 -
[211] - Quote
bornaa wrote:@ CCP
Scrap this ****** changes and back to drawing board!!!
This is worse then Incarna that you gave us. At least Incarna did not screw up the game for many many people.
You guys are not here to change the game only to benefit big guys!!!!! Think a little about small people, industry people, research people, miners all other people who enjoy the game when someone don't ruin it for them. Just look how much industry corps/alliances were killed by griefing, this will destroy them completely in the future. You are encouraging griefing!!!!! You cant make people to change their game stile and do something they don't like, they will quit.
Lets talk about miners now: Look how much you ****** up miners with ganking boosts. When you add up war griefing its almost dead. With this changes you will hammer the last nail into mining coffin. -> this is only the example, and other professions are screwed by this like that.
Yay, I had some anonymous dudes wardec my one-man corp, presumedly to get a cheap shot on my mission runner ships (as if i was to endanger a ship worth 3 months of my income...). I just resigned as CEO, transfered the corp to this alt and went NPC for a week. Then the war ended as it was non-mutual and I went back to business with only a small 10% dent in my weekly income.
And now some CCP smartass thinks everyone who ever did like me just spoiled the fun to poor lil' griefin' modafakers and it's about time to make things more "fair"... great. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
612
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:14:00 -
[212] - Quote
Jessie-A Tassik wrote:Danny Centauri wrote:Inferno - Fueled by the tears of carebears. Have to admit the amount of ********Gäó in this thread is quite impressive on the side of the carebears. Apparently the phrase adapt or die doesn't apply if it makes you sad . [/i] So, Null Bear, will you continue hiding in your Mega Corp, immune from War Decs? Yes? That's what I thought. lmao why would nullsec players care about wardecs? I only care about it from a macroeconomic perspective, but on a given day I have 3-4 wardecs on me every day of the year and I couldn't care less because I never leave null on this account and any supplies I need are handled with an undeccable NPC corp alt in a bestower or a alt logistics corp. hth |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
789
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:14:00 -
[213] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: Q: How do you calculate value of blueprints? A: We don't, they are the exception to what value we could track. We looked into adding this, but it turned out to be too complicated.
The simple way to determine BPO cost is - NPC sell value. And research levels simply don't count. AFAIK, all T1 BPOs out there have a NPC sell value. Alternately, if you want to include ME/PE levels into the value, then calculate the cost to run a large POS for 30 days, assume 60 slots in use, which gives you a per-hour number to apply to the ME/PE number. It will be on the low side (because nobody can keep 60 ME/PE slots running non-stop). But it will be in the ballpark of what the BPO is worth.
For T2 BPOs - that is a lot trickier. They almost never change hands, or only via contracts. Those, you should just give them values by category. Regular module T2 BPOs would be worth X, T2 ammo BPOs worth Y, etc. It should be possible to guess at this.
BPCs - should be valued at the cost of the POS fuel needed to create the BPC (so large tower POS fuel cost per 30 days, divided by 60 slots, times how long it takes to create the BPC). It will be "close enough".
And now that there are fuel blocks, you can just take the average cost of fuel blocks of the four types as your cost-basis to figure out a per-30day cost. |
darius mclever
25
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:15:00 -
[214] - Quote
the price by corp size thing is stupid ... it will actually guard large entities while making the small corps the preferred target. |
Severian Carnifex
122
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:16:00 -
[215] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:So the message I get from this is stay in NPC or get in as large a groups as possible?
The message I get is quit EVE
I was watching that FanFest war presentation and the question on the end All people that asked some question were concerned about the changes and DEV gave same answer over and over again That I see all over again here.
It seems to me that CCP don't listen players at all and trying to quick fix all problems and not ever trying re-make all broken parts.
Please CCP don't ruin the game for many many many EVE players. Don't **** up little man (again). Don't try to force players to change their gameplay because they don't want to and many wont and will quit. CCP has already killed too many game stiles in EVE and pushed too many players away. |
gfldex
426
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:16:00 -
[216] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Yay, I had some anonymous dudes wardec my one-man corp, presumedly to get a cheap shot on my mission runner ships (as if i was to endanger a ship worth 3 months of my income...). I just resigned as CEO, transfered the corp to this alt and went NPC for a week. Then the war ended as it was non-mutual and I went back to business with only a small 10% dent in my weekly income. And now some CCP smartass thinks everyone who ever did like me just spoiled the fun to poor lil' griefin' modafakers and it's about time to make things more "fair" to PvP carebears... great.
And what's going to stop you do the same with the new wardec system?
Goons are the 3%. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
729
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:24:00 -
[217] - Quote
One good dev blog after another. Keep up the great work. Loving the new CCP.
|
Dirk Space
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:25:00 -
[218] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Dirk Space wrote:Quote: Just because some people want to bully the little guy, the carebear, someone who just wants to log on and make stuff, how does that make the war dec system justifiable?
Nobody in this thread has given (in fact I doubt nobody can give) a valid reason as to why the war dec system sxists, except to grief people. Wardecs where introduced as a compromise of another compromise. The latter is the existence of CONCORD. In the very beginning there was no CONCORD nor station guns. As undocking could take you longer then 30 sec to load the scene (the servers nowadays are brilliant compared to what we used to have) and as a result cunning individuals farmed noobs, actions had to be taken. Instead of solving the problem to get out of a station without getting blown to smithereens CCP decided adding some NPCs that stop such attacks would be wise. It was for sure easier (read: faster) to implement. Since EVE was (was!) centered around non-consentional PvP the wardec system was added to the game to allow corps in highsec to fight over resources. Yes, you are supposed to fight for what you own. That may even mean you have to work together with capable players. That's why wardecs are there. The comfort zone that highsec became with the privateer-nerf was never meant to be there in the first place. Now that will be fixed. And demanding the game to be easy, no matter for that char age, is whining. Esp. if there are very viable options for your to opt-out of combat against players. You seam to have problems to understand what grief play really is: here a incomplete list. Driving your little corp out of business (read: make your members join proper corps instead) is not griefplay by any means. You are solo? NPC corps are your salvation. If that means you can't have that ISK printing machine that is your highsec research POS, we will be fine with that. More money for those who can actually defend their business. (Or have friends that can.)
Thank you for giving the answer I was waiting for.
War decs were implemented for a reason. That reason no longer exists. War decs are now just a tool to grief and bully people that are not able to field sufficient numbers, strategies or tactics to deter such behaviour. They are an outdated mechanic that holds no place, except for those intent on causing hurt and suffering on others.
Remove war decs completely, people will adapt. |
Mentat Cthulhu
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:27:00 -
[219] - Quote
I think the changes are fine except the wardec costs should be capped or even have bands like 0-10 members, 10-25 members 25-50members 50-100members 100-250members 250-500members 500-1000members, 1000+ members...don't make having 8k members a way to optout of highsec wars unless someone is willing to pay many billions per week to enage you.... |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
789
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:28:00 -
[220] - Quote
Bruce Blacky wrote:What about war decs by corps with one character 40 jumps away.
Then when they sppot you in space, multiple characxters (lets say 4) join that war party (the agressor), kill the defender and leave the corp again. Leaving the defender with no means to kill his (real) agressor?
Will you adress that?
(in case you need details see petition i posted about that incident)
Cheers Bruce
That has to be fixed with timers.
1) A player who wants to leave a defender/aggressor corp has to wait until downtime.
2) Joining a corp that is in an active wardec (either side) does not take effect until downtime.
3) All corp changes by a player incur a 18 hour timer before you can change again.
For corporations joining/leaving alliances, it should only take effect at downtime and should have a 50 hour cooldown.
So you can still corp/alliance hop, but you can't do it in the middle of the day and you can't hop like a bunny rabbit multiple times per day.
|
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
394
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:28:00 -
[221] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Yay, I had some anonymous dudes wardec my one-man corp, presumedly to get a cheap shot on my mission runner ships (as if i was to endanger a ship worth 3 months of my income...). I just resigned as CEO, transfered the corp to this alt and went NPC for a week. Then the war ended as it was non-mutual and I went back to business with only a small 10% dent in my weekly income. And now some CCP smartass thinks everyone who ever did like me just spoiled the fun to poor lil' griefin' modafakers and it's about time to make things more "fair" to PvP carebears... great. And what's going to stop you do the same with the new wardec system?
The war won't stop authomatically if non-mutual, only will stop if the agressor stops paying for it. Which opens a door for cheaply kicking people out of game for "NOT PLAYING MY WAY".
That's outrageously stupid and unnecesary. If a player chooses to stay out of PvP, he must not be forced to do so, and certainly not in a way that can effectively make playing impossible to him for a ludicrous low price. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
394
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:29:00 -
[222] - Quote
Dirk Space wrote:gfldex wrote:Dirk Space wrote:Quote: Just because some people want to bully the little guy, the carebear, someone who just wants to log on and make stuff, how does that make the war dec system justifiable?
Nobody in this thread has given (in fact I doubt nobody can give) a valid reason as to why the war dec system sxists, except to grief people. Wardecs where introduced as a compromise of another compromise. The latter is the existence of CONCORD. In the very beginning there was no CONCORD nor station guns. As undocking could take you longer then 30 sec to load the scene (the servers nowadays are brilliant compared to what we used to have) and as a result cunning individuals farmed noobs, actions had to be taken. Instead of solving the problem to get out of a station without getting blown to smithereens CCP decided adding some NPCs that stop such attacks would be wise. It was for sure easier (read: faster) to implement. Since EVE was (was!) centered around non-consentional PvP the wardec system was added to the game to allow corps in highsec to fight over resources. Yes, you are supposed to fight for what you own. That may even mean you have to work together with capable players. That's why wardecs are there. The comfort zone that highsec became with the privateer-nerf was never meant to be there in the first place. Now that will be fixed. And demanding the game to be easy, no matter for that char age, is whining. Esp. if there are very viable options for your to opt-out of combat against players. You seam to have problems to understand what grief play really is: here a incomplete list. Driving your little corp out of business (read: make your members join proper corps instead) is not griefplay by any means. You are solo? NPC corps are your salvation. If that means you can't have that ISK printing machine that is your highsec research POS, we will be fine with that. More money for those who can actually defend their business. (Or have friends that can.) Thank you for giving the answer I was waiting for. War decs were implemented for a reason. That reason no longer exists. War decs are now just a tool to grief and bully people that are not able to field sufficient numbers, strategies or tactics to deter such behaviour. They are an outdated mechanic that holds no place, except for those intent on causing hurt and suffering on others. Remove war decs completely, people will adapt.
That's another take...
EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Dirk Space
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:31:00 -
[223] - Quote
I do apologise for me carping on about this but I am struggling to comprehend why we are arguing about the subleties surrounding the mechanics of war decs when it is obvious that the whole system needs removing. After a review and a suitable replacement is designed, then it should be implemented.
It doesn't matter how much we talk about changing the costs, or large corp deccing a small corp ratios, it is still a broken mechanic. |
gfldex
426
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:31:00 -
[224] - Quote
Dirk Space wrote:War decs were implemented for a reason. That reason no longer exists.
Last time I check CONCORD was still there.
Goons are the 3%. |
THE L0CK
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
125
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:35:00 -
[225] - Quote
Dirk Space wrote:I do apologise for me carping on about this but I am struggling to comprehend why we are arguing about the subleties surrounding the mechanics of war decs when it is obvious that the whole system needs removing. After a review and a suitable replacement is designed, then it should be implemented.
It doesn't matter how much we talk about changing the costs, or large corp deccing a small corp ratios, it is still a broken mechanic.
I agree. We should get rid of wardecs and concorde/gate guns as well. Space used to be policed by the people and it should bethat way again. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
395
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:36:00 -
[226] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Dirk Space wrote:War decs were implemented for a reason. That reason no longer exists. Last time I check CONCORD was still there.
Last time I checked suicide ganking of hapless noobs, miners and the whatever was still in place without no need for harmful unescapable wardecs. And It took years until suicide ganking ships as much as lose their insurance payback... EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
gfldex
426
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:37:00 -
[227] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:The war won't stop authomatically if non-mutual, only will stop if the agressor stops paying for it. Which opens a door for cheaply kicking people out of game for "NOT PLAYING MY WAY".
With the current system the war goes on until the attackers corp wallet runs dry. With the new system the war has to be prolonged by hand. You are actually getting an improvement.
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:That's outrageously stupid and unnecesary. If a player chooses to stay out of PvP, he must not be forced to do so, and certainly not in a way that can effectively make playing impossible to him for a ludicrous low price.
As you have stated you are very well capable to avoid any PvP. For you nothing will change. Why do you want to force your playstyle on others? There are players who like challenges.
Goons are the 3%. |
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
374
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:40:00 -
[228] - Quote
After a corp has declared war the defending corp has 24 hours to make it mutual. Mutual wars have no weekly fee and can only end by an accepted surrender offer from either side. In mutual wars both aggressor and defender can sign up allies, or, alternatively, none of them can. Maybe make that an option the defending corp can select when declaring the war mutual. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
395
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:42:00 -
[229] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:The war won't stop authomatically if non-mutual, only will stop if the agressor stops paying for it. Which opens a door for cheaply kicking people out of game for "NOT PLAYING MY WAY". With the current system the war goes on until the attackers corp wallet runs dry. With the new system the war has to be prolonged by hand. You are actually getting an improvement. Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:That's outrageously stupid and unnecesary. If a player chooses to stay out of PvP, he must not be forced to do so, and certainly not in a way that can effectively make playing impossible to him for a ludicrous low price. As you have stated you are very well capable to avoid any PvP. For you nothing will change. Why do you want to force your playstyle on others? There are players who like challenges.
Yes, and they all are hoping to be able to wardec hapless non-PvPrs in this dreadful game when killing the innocent has got awful consequences such as:
EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Takoten Yaken
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:42:00 -
[230] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:gfldex wrote:Dirk Space wrote:War decs were implemented for a reason. That reason no longer exists. Last time I check CONCORD was still there. Last time I checked suicide ganking of hapless noobs, miners and the whatever was still in place without no need for harmful unescapable wardecs. And It took years until suicide ganking ships as much as lose their insurance payback... lookin forward to deccing you nonstop |
|
Mr LaForge
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
264
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:43:00 -
[231] - Quote
Would sugges thte cost of a war works both ways. A small corp decing a larger corp pays alot. A large corp decing a smaller corp pays alot too. Would invite corps of similar size to fight more. Stuff Goes here |
Dirk Space
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:44:00 -
[232] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Dirk Space wrote:War decs were implemented for a reason. That reason no longer exists. Last time I check CONCORD was still there.
It is obvious you enjoy utilising the war dec system in eve. I am sure it empowers you by forcing your will on other people so that you can dictate your gameplay style on others who are unable to match your 'prowess' in pvp.
It may suprise you to hear that I have never been war decced. I have never had to hide away because of the big bad bullies picking on me.
There is something that I have that you seem not to posess and that is the ability to see other peoples point of view.
Try looking at the picture as a whole, a bit of blue sky thinking, and see where war decs actually play a part. |
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:44:00 -
[233] - Quote
I'm just going to repeat a few of the more important things in this thread.
Big corps cost more to dec. A more tinfoil-reliant player might suggest that the bigger corps are bored of using out-of-corp alts to run their errands in high sec. Which corp has more trouble getting a billion isk, a 10 or a 1000 man one? Basically you're making bigger corps very unlikely to be decced. You know, the ones that actually have the manpower to clean the Jita undock for their guys. Also more people wanting to shoot people should cost more. What's the logic behind "I want to go shoot those guys with these guys" only counting the people on the other side when more targets (people involved in the war) means more costs?
This penalizes the small corps that are being formed. Not everyone wants to join a big corp already there. A small corp of out-of-game friends is practically being told to join an alliance with the politics and risks that follow or stay in the NPC corp. With less new corps we will see more stagnation when the only alternative is joining an existing block.
And finally risk-free griefing. Let's say I have a second account with a suitably skilled character in a one-man corp. I can dec another corp, say the small corp of friends up there, a 10 man industrial, for 25 million per week. I just need to stay docked and type a few lines in the local every now and then to force the other corp to stay docked. I effectively make it impossible for them to play without it affecting my main's ability to function. I'm sure the 10 people appreciate paying sub for staying docked. Now eventually they will start doing whatever they usually do when I take no action and I can go get their juicy stuffs with a small investment of 50 million or so.
Sounds great? But it gets even better. If they hire someone to protect them, I can just not pay and stay docked for the week. I'm out of a paltry sum of ISK but caused quite a bit of annoyance for other 10 players. One could argue it's in line with the risks of forming a corp but in my opinion this is just ridiculous. They can make the war mutual but that just means I don't have even to pay the bill. Who's going to camp a station for 4 weeks continuously? Where's the risk for me? |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
395
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:44:00 -
[234] - Quote
Jowen Datloran wrote:After a corp has declared war the defending corp has 24 hours to make it mutual. Mutual wars have no weekly fee and can only end by an accepted surrender offer from either side. In mutual wars both aggressor and defender can sign up allies, or, alternatively, none of them can. Maybe make that an option the defending corp can select when declaring the war mutual.
Make it better, allow a corp to declare itself non-PvP and have CONCORD spawn on top of them when attacked as long as they don't shoot on a player owned ship. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Nohb Oddy
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:46:00 -
[235] - Quote
The coming changes to the wardec system look positive. A clear cut goal on allowing players to know what they are getting into (or having thrust upon them) with easier to understand and utilize options that are available to the players. However, there are a few parts that seem to hit a snag on the listed goals and removes existing play styles
1) The fee for a wardec looks a bit high. I accept the desire to make it a larger moneysink, but the model presented seems out of line. That model being 20/50m plus 0.5m per member each week. These costs directly go against the one of the intended functions of the war as stated at FanFest and this dev blog. The fees grant smaller corporations a forum of immunity in that they would not have the ability to pay enough (ransom) to even cover the cost of the dec itself. While at the same time the only groups able to afford decing the power-blocks will be those getting funding from said power-blocks. This goes against the goal of encouraging wars outside of empire as well as limiting viable targets for a war since the high and low ends are both removed from the average player. As an example, it would cost over 4.2 Billion Isk to declare war on the Goons for one week (only taking into account their player-count). One of the main points presented at FanFest was a desire to encourage Null Sec wars to become sanctioned through the new mechanics. The payments of billions of isk per week are not enough to warrant In-Game features that can be found on many third party killboard websites
~My suggestion is to keep (and maybe even raise) the initial starting dec fee (20/50m plus 0.5m per member), but then reduce the weekly fee to sustain the dec to encourage a war to 'run its course.' This goes directly in line with a more impactful war system that was stated as desired during FanFest. Additionally, having a set 'maximum' fee may not be a bad idea to aid in declaring wars on larger power-blocks to deny them easy access to trade-hubs.
2) I REALLY like the Ally system in that it allows for people to jump into a war without having to pay for it. But this seems very one sided in the favor of the defender, granting them a lot of power and control over the war itself which will generally turn into the aggressor dropping the dec once they get the chance if things are not in their favor. Being stuck in a bad war for a week isn't much of a risk since many players are only really active a few days out of the week.
~My suggestion is to set a war to 'mutual' when the defender brings in an ally. My reasoning: when the aggressor pays the fees to start a war they are indicating that they want to 'kick the other guy's teeth in'. When the defender brings in an ally they are showing they that also want to 'kick the other guy's teeth in', which would mean that they mutually want to fight it out, and thus should have the war set to mutual. This would remove the aggressor's need to pay the weekly fee, but would also remove their ability to withdraw the war itself without paying compensations to the other party (more risk to start a war, but a 'reward' of not having to pay). It would also put an increased meaning or 'weight' to the defender pulling in allies to fight their fights for them since it may mean that they get stuck in the war for a prolonged time if things turns south (though they can just bring in more allies).
3) Mutual wars don't make much sense as they are now. When a war is set to mutual the aggressor no longer has to pay the bill, but at the same time they can drop the war just as they could if it wasn't mutual. This gives no real reason for people to use that mechanic say Red vs. Blue.
~To change this all one has to do is replace the ability to drop a dec with the requirement of paying a surrender to drop the war, even if you are the aggressor, after the war becomes mutual.
These ideas come directly from having worked in a smaller wardecing corp. The listed changes will make it much harder (if not impossible) to pull a profit unless the smaller corps join together into longer power-blocks. This comes from simple math: you can't ransom someone more isk than they have to give, and many of the smaller corps don't have the funds to pay enough in ransom to make running an extended war worth even considering. On that note, it is VERY easy to just stay docked up for a week. This new system makes staying docked even nicer considering the heftier fee the aggressor has to pay to keep someone docked with no chance of kills or ransoming.
My desire to avoid power-blocks and enjoy the game with a small group of friends is the very reason I left Null Sec for Empire wardecing. Nohb Oddy likes you. |
Micheal Dietrich
Standards and Practices
168
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:47:00 -
[236] - Quote
Takoten Yaken wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:gfldex wrote:Dirk Space wrote:War decs were implemented for a reason. That reason no longer exists. Last time I check CONCORD was still there. Last time I checked suicide ganking of hapless noobs, miners and the whatever was still in place without no need for harmful unescapable wardecs. And It took years until suicide ganking ships as much as lose their insurance payback... lookin forward to deccing you nonstop
Tried to tell you Inda, squawking birds tends to get noticed. |
Nathanien Indoril
Engineering. Creation and Extraction
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:49:00 -
[237] - Quote
Hmm... system needs a rework, but with this new system... it feels like the aggressor has a too big advantage (cause they choose to start and to end the whole war-thing)
What about this idea (to give the defender a little more room): The price of the wardec is calculated by the current members of the aggressor corp. When they declare war, they are not able to recruit new members and current members cannot leave the corp. The defender has none of these recruitment - restrictions. To give Alliances like RvB a chance just to fight each other - give the defender the opportunity to also declare war to the aggressor - in that case all restrictions are lifted.
Just a idea... it's late... at this time my english is bad - and i don't want to throw a wall of text at you (: |
Dirk Space
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:50:00 -
[238] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote:Takoten Yaken wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:gfldex wrote:Dirk Space wrote:War decs were implemented for a reason. That reason no longer exists. Last time I check CONCORD was still there. Last time I checked suicide ganking of hapless noobs, miners and the whatever was still in place without no need for harmful unescapable wardecs. And It took years until suicide ganking ships as much as lose their insurance payback... lookin forward to deccing you nonstop Tried to tell you Inda, squawking birds tends to get noticed.
Threats, in my game?
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
395
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:50:00 -
[239] - Quote
Keras Authion wrote:And finally risk-free griefing. Let's say I have a second account with a suitably skilled character in a one-man corp. I can dec another corp, say the small corp of friends up there, a 10 man industrial, for 25 million per week. I just need to stay docked and type a few lines in the local every now and then to force the other corp to stay docked. I effectively make it impossible for them to play without it affecting my main's ability to function. I'm sure the 10 people appreciate paying sub for staying docked. Now eventually they will start doing whatever they usually do when I take no action and I can go get their juicy stuffs with a small investment of 50 million or so.
Sounds great? But it gets even better. If they hire someone to protect them, I can just not pay and stay docked for the week. I'm out of a paltry sum of ISK but caused quite a bit of annoyance for other 10 players. One could argue it's in line with the risks of forming a corp but in my opinion this is just ridiculous. They can make the war mutual but that just means I don't have even to pay the bill. Who's going to camp a station for 4 weeks continuously? Where's the risk for me?
Very well summarized. Now just wait to have that smart CCP-whatsoever guy tell us this is exactly what they are aiming for and thus we should just cancel our subscription to their game if we don't like it. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
gfldex
426
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:53:00 -
[240] - Quote
Dirk Space wrote:There is something that I have that you seem not to posess and that is the ability to see other peoples point of view.
I do very well see other peoples point of view but I don't feel bound to have to agree. Esp. in a computer game. It's sad to see that you retreat to insults when you are out of arguments.
Goons are the 3%. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |