Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Now Ill put a sligt brick against this in saying that if you increase war dec cost make it harder to 1 form a new corporation like put in paper wook that takes a week to get processed. and 2. harder to leave one.

However leaving one is a bit of a .... well counter ingenious of eve it would really kill scammers ability to work and I dont want that in eve.

I specifically addressed a statement you made in your wall of tears rant.

I simply did not agree with your agenda.

Is that too hard for you to grasp?

Yes, I think so.

ad hominem
— adj , — adv
1. directed against a person rather than against his arguments
2. based on or appealing to emotion rather than reason

Based on the definition, my statement is valid.

However, your post does fall under the definition of ad hominem quite nicely.

I don't really have an issue making it harder to form a corp, it would cut down on the noobs making corps just because they can. Maybe 25-50M or so cost to form a corp or something like that might be reasonable (you shouldn't need to be rich to start a corp, but you shouldn't be a complete noob either).

I'm not sure about harder to leave though, I already have run into the annoyance of the timer to drop roles (from switching to EACS for jump clones before I had the standings myself) and that's already pretty annoying. What would you propose to make it more difficult for corp jumpers without penalizing people who have a legitimate reason to drop out of the corp. Maybe a waiting period of 5 days minus the number of months you've been in your corp? (just tossing out numbers here, but the idea is that you're only penalized if you change corps repeatedly and quickly).

I had let this thread be because I really sort of said what I had in mind before, but I return to it because you keep hammering on a particular subject that makes me want to ask you, how do you plan to address the fact that this game allows you to declare war on anyone you please for any reason you please, for as long as you please and always has with your insistence that somehow wardecs should follow some narrow list of of outcomes that you can envision?

Keep in mind that my experience of wardec fees is much more than 2 million a week and I have still been part of wars because numpties wanted to bump on gates or neutral rep or any other number of, frankly, idiotic things (like flying around in expensive toys shooting npcs all day).

You simply have no right to limit my reasons to want to shoot someone else and I would like for you to admit that for once.

You might want to train Reading Comprehension to level 1 atleast, it really is worth the SP investment.

No one is seriously suggesting that PvP be prevented at all, suicide ganking and wardecs will always be there. What was being discussed was making cost more to declare war on someone than it costs to fit out a frig. War shouldn't be trivial.

Corp v corp wars cost 2 million. Involve an alliance and it is 50 million. Make deccing a corp cost 50 million would be fine with me if it was not for the fact that you can make an alliance for yourself or just join an alliance and the dec fee jumps to 50 million automatically. If wars against you only cost 2 million them ffs alliance up.


As a counterpoint the Orphange had around 20 active decs not that long ago and were paying around 18 billion a week to keep them running. Each war cost them 450x what your 2 million war costs, is this still too little?

It is the base 50 million becoming base 500 million that I dont want. Orphanage in the example above would have to pay 180 billion each week for their 20 wars.



Unless the Alliance P nerf is removed and wardecs return to a flat fee. This would fix dec shields. Add in a pay to alliance hop and drop corp and they are fixed. Then all that needs fixed is joining in space and a lot of GM work is removed.



Not really a counter but if your hypothetical corp made or joined an alliance then this 2 million figure automatically jumps to 50 million. I do forget that wardecs can cost only 2 million as it is so simple to avoid.

50 or 100 million to dec someone is fine for most people but there is a push to get this figure increased by a more substantial amount. 250 million, 500 million, a billion, two billion for a week of war against a single alliance, where do you draw the line?



"not a perfect analogy" is an understatement as this is a terrible analogy.

Afaik CONCORD are not precisely law enforcement but treaty enforcement. Think of it more as a ruler allowing their nobles to settle differences among themselves with a petitioned writ from the ruler being all that you need.

No one actually dies since we are immortal in game. $100? For all we know the 2 or 50 million might be the equivalent of a small or large towns yearly income.



You might as well give your idea for the wardec cost formula in your thread then.

As to the intentions of CCP, proof or gtfo.

I propose that war decs have a "warzone" where the War dec is only valid within a specific constellation.

You pay a fee based on how many constellations the war dec is active in (and there would be a maximum number of constellations the dec can be active in at once).
Each additional constellation costs more to add then the last one.

The higher the security status of the systems within the constellation, the higher the cost.
Perhaps the cost of having a war dec for a constellation against a target is: (average system security status) * (base war price) * (number of constellations in which a war dec agaisnt the target is active)

Thus on average a warzone of two constellations is 4 times as expensive as a wardec in one constellation.
A warzone of 3 constellations will cost just over double a warzone with 2 constellations
A warzone of 10 constellations will cost 10^2/9^2 = 1.23 -> only 23% more to expand it from 9 to 10 constellations
Single constellation wardecs would be cheap, so its easy to perform "interdictions" against opposing corps - but it will quickly become quite expensive to wage a widespread war.
I would expect constellations with trade hubs would be frequent war areas.

Right now there is a war dec on the alliance my main is in - made by some small 4 man corp, at least 2 of which are alts.

Is my understanding that this war dec is incursion related.

In the system I propose, the war deccers would make the war dec valid in high sec constellations with active incursions.
They've accomplished their goal, at least with me, as I've taken a break from Incursions due to the war dec.
But at the same time, I'm also not doing lvl 4's in my shiny ships.


If its goonswarm and their interdiction on high sec gallente Ice - they could war dec corps only in constellations containing Ice.
They could cheaply shut down one constellation with Ice, and it may be cheaper to war dec every corp they see mining ice than to lose ships to concord.

I'd also propose war decs against noob corps are allowed, but the war dec is only active in systems with a security rating of 0.5 or below.
This would be of limited utility, but it would still have its uses (like Ice interdictions)

This. And thag would be bad. Its you day 1 to about 9 month players who actually pay for subs. After 9, they can plex decent.

Null sec done right you don't pay subs very often unless you lose like 5 bs' in one month.

Gankers feed off of the bears running faction gear, the well dries up they will either mission or leave.

Or people will jsut stay NPC corp. tax aint that bad for its protection it gives. And this the option these thread starters don't want. Most of these threads are people try9ng to avoid concording in ganks imo. Why theyy'd be better off leaving stuff as is. these decs get some day 1 business and poeple then corp hop or alt it sometimes. Very workable way to run things. Look at privateers, they make a big chunk of their money day 1 of a dec killing off idiots who don't read the corp/alliance maills saying its jita off limits time again. Day 2...unless filled with idiots most of the deccers make jita runs in alts.

Want the uber mission ship that bad, gank it basically. make war dec oppressive and you'll be doing this anyway.

and I see that you are ignoring the fact that CCP will not do something so dramatic that would cut subscriber numbers.

If someone plays EVE for a few hours a week as a way to relax perhaps by running missions or mining with some friends, they will not pay for a subscription if they are under a constant wardec for weeks or months! Period!

Can they stay in NPC corps? sure they can, but then you further reduce the number of people available to wardec.

Look at the way CCP has been going with highsec over the past couple of years. First they made CONCORD respond faster which required gankers to bring more DPS and/or ships. Now they have decided to declare any tactics about wardecs no longer an exploit which makes pretty much any player immune to wardecs if they have a few brain cells. Do you really think CCP is going to **** off a large part of the player base when they no longer enjoy EVE because they won't undock?

As I already stated, the extended wardec idea would be great for sov holders. However for your average EVE player who might play 5 - 10 hours a week, it's a great way to get them to quit!