EVE Information Portal

Again, you're quite wrong, and fail to get the point.

What actually happened is that we expanded on our skillset, and learned the Ways of Highsec Warfare, so that we were able to protect the way we played (and still play) our game.
No-one told us to do anything. We chose not to be victims, never pay any ransoms, never give in to extortion, and kick the bastards in the teeth if they tried.
The fact that deciding not to be a victim in this game means learning how to shoot virtual spaceships is incidental, and actually "working as intended".

"My way" of playing is actually the way most griefers hate with a passion.
I casually run my missions, happily chatting with old friends and interesting newbies, trying to teach the latter how not to be victims if they're willing to listen, and introducing them to people who can take them further on their way in their chosen area of interest. Like a good old highbear.
The reason I can do so relatively unbothered is simply because I am also quite capable of ripping anyone disturbing me in my casual routine a new one, with interest.

So how has learning the ways of combat pvp made me play the game "their way"?
From where I'm sitting it has simply enabled me to play my way with more confidence, and less bother.

And I didn't need to go run crying to momma CCP to make the evil wardecs stop. Which Mansell pointed out quite nicely.

You were willing to be forced to learn combat PvP. I am not. And if I am in the wrong game, then CCP should be clear about it and remove everything not related to combat PvP, call their game "blow spaceships online" and market it to the appropiate target.

Yes, people who have the time and experience should have better tools to deal with threats to their corp. What you are repeatedly ignoring is the old players are encroaching on the new players, not the other way around. By your very logic, the new players are lesser-equipped. So why are corps of PVP-alt toons looking for killboard stats feeling threatened by some level 3 mission runners? They aren't; you are representing the intention of war decs and ignoring how they work in practice. I'm not say corps should have no ability to compete with pvp in high-sec, but the current system is trash. You either destroy them easily, they are forced to change when they play, or they have to change how they play. The first one is most common. We disagree this is a bad thing. The second one is a huge problem. Some people have school, or jobs, or other real life issues that can't move because someone in the game who logs in at the same time felt like picking on them for fun. The third one can't apply to everybody, else there would be no one pvp-ing except for rookie ships, at least until they train 10's of M of other SP first.

Just because you are past a threshold where you can fight toe to toe with any given pilot in EVE, doesn't mean the new player should be hazed too. I would say less than 10% of the people I knew still play a few months after that experience. Also, to an earlier post of yours, my point was I chose not to PLEX, therefore I ran out of ships a lot faster than the other guys. I'm sure you forget the days when you could only afford a BC or two. And any mission that requires more than a shuttle to complete should have been a ripe target for the dec corps. It sounds like you got lucky and they didn't pay that close attention to you. New players don't have jump clones and ships for 3-4 mission hubs.

And the #1 problem with this proposed change is it rewards large corps targeting small corps since they will pay the least ISK/member to participate. At the very least it should be the other way around.

I wanted to iterate on my earlier suggestions. Because giving the large corps ISK shields is useless for encouraging PVP.

Each of these should have a linear effect on the cost of war dec

• Number of pilots in the target corp (active in the last 7 days)
• Number of pilots in the aggressor corp (total)
• Number of systems (can be done in region or empire blocks)
• Number of renewals already requested (requires an equal cool down)

An all out war of a large corp in all empire space should be a significant expense, regardless of the opponent size. A regional scuffle between two competitors should be relatively cheap. The aggressor corp should be the dominating number. Furthermore, if there is a cool down, the decision to prolong a war has benefits and drawbacks on both sides.

Furthermore, there should be discounts in the form of victory conditions. For each condition, there is an increase in cost, but double that increase is escrow instead of a fee. (If a victory condition costs 30M/week, 30M+30M/week is refunded if the defender agrees to the terms)

• A specific POS location must be unanchored from space, and cannot be reanchored for 7 days (enough time for another to be anchored)
• A specific corp office must be shut down, and cannot be reopened as long as the victor corp maintains an office there
• All industry/research orders must be cancelled at a given station
• A specific amount of ISK must be paid (this replaces the escrow, so if it is 1B, the victor is refunded the 1B/week and recieves the prize)

If the defended accepts all terms, the war can end even before pvp commences. This makes wars with clear objectives cheaper, and also penalizes unreasonable objectives since they would pay extra for no additional reward. If the aggressed corp disbands, the extra fees would be refunded, but Concord would keep the escrow (since it was part of the original dec fee anyway). This discourages targeting corps with nothing of value.

A system along these lines would make fighting cheaper when something is at stake, when a corp should have to defend itself, while offering more protection to learning corps that aren't competition. Could this be a win-win?

Along these lines, if a corp has no corp assets (POS, offices, etc), perhaps a corp tax of 25% to Concord should make them effectively an NPC subcorp? (Technically 10% to concord, 15% to the parent NPC corp). That is essentially a 15% tax for a ticker and corp channel, the former being useless and the latter being easily simulated with a player channel. Although with the new killmails I guess that could matter? There is probably a fair number there as long as they have most of the restrictions of an NPC corp.

Hey those are two of the points from my proposal. I had a 1 week no wardec grace period after wars and geometric progression on cost (potentially daily) if not made mutual. (Although discounted by "activity" on the aggressor's part in order to incentivise the aggressor to actually log in and fly rather than scout around on alts.)

So: SUPPORTED

As many posters have pointed out, an older corp usually has several advantages over a younger corp:

- More pilots
- Higher SP pilots
- More PVP experience
- Richer

So, let's face reality:

a) A 10-man PVP corp consisting of 1 year old players will nearly always defeat a 10-man PVP corp consisting of 1 month old players. Even assuming equal FC and pilot skills, the older corp will have more SP/player, can fly and use better ships/fittings, and can afford to lose a lot more ships.

b) For a younger corp, there is just no point to playing, if you have no chance of winning and cannot afford to replace those ships. Needless to say, they probably cannot afford to pay a ransom or hire mercenaries, either.

c) The newer players would not even be able to afford to start a war, under the new pricing scheme. This does not exactly encourage newer corps to want to engage high sec wars, only the older corps.

So, any "fixed" rate wardec pricing scheme, based solely on number of defender corp members, simply isn't likely to work. It will either be too cheap or too expensive, depending on the age/size of the aggressor corp. It is necessary to figure in the age/experience of the members, and the number of members, of the aggressor corp into the pricing scheme, as well.

That said, here's my suggestion:

- If a younger or smaller corp wants to start a war, then the price should be scaled down accordingly.

- If an older or larger corp wants to start a war, the price should be scaled up accordingly.

- If an older or larger corp wardecs a younger or smaller corp, the price should be modified upwards, on an exponential scale. It should be very costly for a 100 member veteran corp to wardec a 2-man noob corp.

- If a younger or smaller corp wardecs an older or larger corp, the price should be modified downwards. I'm sure that the Goons would actually love to be wardecc'ed by a hundred or so small high sec corps.... :)

- The age of a corp should be based on the age of its members, not when the corp was formed. And, not the average age - this is too easily exploited by loading up the corp with new alts. The 'age' value should be more on the order of the sum of the ages of its members, so adding new alts won't tweak the value.

Under this scheme, wardecs should be affordable for younger and smaller corps, while simultaneously making it more costly for older and larger corps to wardec a far inferior target.

Some options:

- An interesting twist would be to add an additional modifier based on the *relative* age/size of the two corps. If the two corps are similar in size and age of members, then the price for the wardec should be reduced. This could encourage wars between comparable corps.

- A portion of the wardec fee could be paid to the defending corp. This might make a reluctant defender more willing to fight, rather than just dock in station, if the wardec fees allows them to recover some PVP losses (note that many younger corps can't really afford to lose endless numbers of ships, esp. if they cannot mine, mission or whatever to make back that ISK during the war).

- Make high sec POSes off-limits for high sec wars. This is one of the major reasons why high sec indy corps don't want to get into a war, anyways - they don't want their POS ops to be disrupted. And, in any case, popping POSes in high sec is even more dull, boring, and painful than in null sec, due to the inability to field dreads.

Remember always, too, that the real end goal is to get more high sec players to *want* to play PVP - rather than *force* them to PVP (which is more likely just to encourage them to quit playing altogether).

Cost scaling is a stupid idea in the first place, regardless of how it scales exactly and in which direction it scales it's a bad concept that will always be abused and however it gets implemented the outcome will be negative.

The only people in highsec who stand to benefit from cost scaling in any way is e-uni who will now be able to maintain a decshield for free.

Let me say it again just to be clear: Cost scaling is a stupid, CCP needs to come up with an isk sink doesn't give people automatic dec shields.

Yes, wars are not the place to put an arbitrary ISK sink.

Some good Alternatives for ISK sinks:

Massively increase NPC corp tax
Remove Insurance for everyone

Better yet hit the faucets that shouldn't exist in the first place.

Remove Incursions from High Sec, or remove CONCORD from Incursion systems.
Remove lvl 4 Missions from High Sec or tie them into FW somehow.
Remove Local Intel from Null, to make it risky to farm out there.

I'm not necessarily against the proposed war dec system. Small indi corps who do no want to be forced into pvp could use a little extra love though.

Two points:
1) It should be a viable choice to refrain from pvp. The sandbox should allow people to stay away from pvp. Forcing them into npc corps is basicly the same as canceling their subscription in the long run. Bad option CCP.

2) It should also be a viable choice to war dec small indi corps. The sandbox should allow people to pvp in any way they want.

Proposal (only applies to high sec):

Give small indi corps that really do not want to spend their time learning pvp the tools to make war deccing them unattractive:

• A well designed Merc corp interface is an option. Plenty people would sign up to Merc corps that would grief the griefers. Design an interface that makes it easy to find these people.
• Give defenders in a war dec the option the hire npc protection, i.e. concord or local police. Make the cost scale to the size of the defender corp. Make it so that 1000+ alliances rather lose a freighter than pay the bill for npc protection. It also adds an extra isk sink if you ever wanted an extra one.

Just my two cents

Ooohhh classic entitlementalism in action...

Why should CCP have to do anything, especially since all your posts prove you are a classic case of "want to have my cake and eat it" ?

Your corp exists, as it clearly states, to avoid NPC taxes. You are, however, not willing to pay the price that comes with this in the form of player interaction you find unwelcome, and complain about the "lack of consideration" from CCP and others who clearly see this.

So yes, you are indeed in the wrong game. Stop trying to blame everyone else for the mistake you made and leave, or man up, and accept the risks that come with the rewards.