EVE General Discussion

just head into dek and kill goons there - isk spent on wardec: 0, available target: lots

Just wanted to pipe up here and say /signed - I agree w/ all of it.

Good post OP.

no! there's actually people there who like to read and write many many words

Hi.

Hi after i have Postet allready a reply to the last Discussion about this theme, and i am quite sure that nobody ever read it because it was at the end of the very long threat, and because i think its not a bad idea to post it again.

Why? Because it would be a nice way to prevent some of the major problems that have occured since Inferno.
Such as:

- First its the seperation of a bounty hunter, and a "deffender"
Please take a look at following person: Tranog from The one man Corp. right now he is fighting in the following two wars --- i'm So Meta Even This Acronym vs. Ivy League //// Moar Tears vs. I'm So Meta Even This Acronym. As you can see this person is Political correct and neutral... but not really a "Defender" to i'm So meta

-second people are doing this careless for free, i think you could easely lure them away from the real Deffender merc contracts and in the meantime....

-Giving a opportunity for a period based war for allys without desabling the other current contract way (pay up in front but ally is in war until it end)

- giving a CEO the possibillity to measure the efford an ally has given, by viewing the "end of warweek bounty payout"

Thats all Folks.. I would like to get a statement on that from someone because i really like this Idea, and i wonder if im the only one who does

This is the link to my Idea
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1351042#post1351042

Yep all this is good.



To be honest I think the wardec ally system resolves these issues in a fairly good way. Case in point. Goonswarm Federation recently wardecced The Star Fraction. They are some vast multi-thousand person alliance and we're currently a couple of dozen. I think they pay 50-100m or something which is a nominal fee. Sure if we wanted to wardec them directly it would cost us hundreds of millions a week. But, we now have the option of hopping on somebody else's defensive request offer for completely FREE (like honda accord or similar target.) This really does balance the field in my opinion and it means that a big organization deccing anyone is an invitation to EVERYONE to fight them from FREE if they want too - and thats a very good thing.

Further to this example - on receiving the Goonswarm Wardec I put it open to assistence requests and have so far added 22 allies to the war - the majority of which are single digit trade-hub fighting corps who could never justify the full independent wardec fee against Goonswarm but are so happy to save half a billion isk a week in charges that they join third party defensive offers for FREE as well.

This is consequence in action. Sure an outfit like Goonswarm has the resources and assets to perma wardec anyone they like - but in doing so the new wardec system allows the defender to wardec anyone they like in order to balance the odds. - For us to have enough allies to equal the Goonswarm numbers we'd need 500 allies of the scale - but funnily enough the system will eventually let us get there.



This is an absolutely terrible idea and would completely cut out small corp participation in defensive allying on wardecs. And it would do nothing but to underpin and enhance the advance large entities already have in access to unlimited wardec funding. There should NEVER be a default concord fee per ally and only ever what the ally themselves wish to charge. This proposal would be a huge disincentive to larger wars and by definition is bad.



Maybe. This I can see has promise and it will lead to the escalation and enlarging of wars and thats a good thing :)



Again not bad ideas though again lets look at one existing example goonswarm vs the star fraction. Goonswarm have intended a permanent dec I assume (certainly the cost is irrelevant to them) so irrelevant in fact that I opted to mutual it last night. Their goal I would assume would be to "have fun" and "shoot jade" - our goal "see goonswarm try to wriggle out of it (ie surrender) - whats the goal we then set to defensive allies ? I mean as discussed we'd probably need 500 allies to = their numbers. I'm entirely happy with the current quid pro quo that people join for free and get to hunt GS in hisec and take what loot they can, but would be ridiculous if we'd end up paying billions in the long term if GS surrendered. (unless of course we could set the victory condition to something like GS has to pay 100m per member to all the participating allies :)

I get the impression not everyone on this thread has looked at the public war list and seen the implications of the ally invitation system yet :)

I hear Goonswarm is starving for materiel and is ripe for the pickings, as they can't reship.

On balance I think you should stick with your second original option (allowing a 2-1 ratio of escalation in favour of the defender). Bringing isk into the equation just overcomplicates it and protects large wardeccing entities. If you are dead set on it then sure, some kind of relative size mechanic could be brought into play but its probably a lot of work programming and balancing to try and solve a problem which either doesn't really exist or is relatively minor. How about letting the current mechanic be tested in the wild for six months before saying its broken?

If you really want to look at the numbers though here's the thing. If goonswarm as a 5000 person entity (no idea what they are currently but lets say 5000 for argument) decs target Y (100 man alliance) for 500m per week. Then the total cost of adding 4900 allies should NEVER exceed 490m isk.

And what happens if the defender declares the war mutual (effectively making the dec free for the aggressor) in that situation its ridiculous that the defender should pay to enlarge the war so long as they are still outnumbered.

I think bringing isk into it is just overcomplicating the system which is currently working pretty damn well and turning hisec into thunderdome for 0.0 powers and their hisec foes.

***

Edit - the thing you are struggling with I think is the notion that zero fee trade hub camping offers are costing "real mercs" out of the market. I don't think its happening. The reality is that if I wanted to hire a merc corp they would be paid for their wardec fee outgoing on X entity (blow up a pos, take out a customs office, vaporize x corp in y system etc) with a bonus on completion.

The concept of defensive merc work is dependent on an actual clear and present war threat.

Take our incoming dec from Goons for example - its just a random pseodo harrassment dec from goons and they have no intention of ever doing anything serious so why would I pay money to a serious merc corp when 99% of combat will be trade hub ganking one way or the other?

If on the other hand there was to be some fight over a hypothetical moon mining pos I really liked then I might well pay a billion or three to bring in some competant firepower for the pitched battle but thats much better managed by an external dec on the aggressor.

Trying to boost "serious merc" rates in the current defensive ally system by pricing the freebies out is just fairly crass protectionism through legislation at the end of the day. Perhaps the "merc market" should just be renamed the "mayhem market" and the real serious mercs should get their own contract category.

Apparently not because I made our war mutal and accepted alllies after doing so and our initial ally contracts were not cancelled. On balance I'm glad they left that clause out because it would have made it much too easy for aggressors to get out of wars - (or ignore wars against small entities).

Currently the only way its possible to potentially get a surrender out of an aggressor in wars is to make it mutual and load up the allies until the aggressor is forced to surrender formally.

If you don't make it mutual they they'll just stop paying and the war will end with the usual "no harm no foul no penality" we're used too.

So you need to the mutual system so the aggressor cannot just evade the war by not paying. And you need the allies system as is to enable an outnumbered defender to equal the field and bring appropiate pressure.

All in all CCP made the right decision to drop that clause because it would have ruined the new system.