These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Improving high sec wars.

Author
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2013-04-05 18:24:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Cannibal Kane
Corianna wrote:
What about using ISK as an incentive? What I have in mind is, upon declaration of war, an ISK pool is generated based on the number of members in both the targeted corp and deccing corp. A significant number, say 250 mil per head.

The pool would serve first: as a buy-out target number, similar to ransom, that could be paid to end the war immediately. Cover half of the pool and you're clear. Payment goes to the opposing corp, either corp can opt to buy-out at anytime prior to the pool reaching 50%.

Second, the pool acts as a bounty, collectable by anyone involved in the war. Unlike individual bounties, payout is 150% (or more) ship value, along with the usual loot/salvage/30% player bounty when applicable. The bounty is subtracted from the pool for both attacking and defending ships, and reduces the buy-out cost in the process. Allied/mercenary ships that officially enter the war also count against the pool for losses and kills (though only when shooting the opposing side).

The war doesn't end when the pool is exhausted, it can be continued as normal with the buy-out option removed, though it's unlikely under this idea that wars would continue indefinitely. Also, to lessen rampant abuse, perhaps a brief duration of immunity from further wardecs should be granted to targeted corps, a few days to a week, at most.

On the related issue of corp dropping and reforming, I believe the initial cost of forming a corp should be much higher than it is currently. Repeat drop and swap wardec evaders would lose more ISK in the long term than simply staying to fight or paying someone else to fight for them. Docking up or logging off, well, nothing can be done to change that, I'm afraid.




And where does this isk come from? Magic ISK is not a good idea stop thinking.

And for the idea from the OP of giving the corp the isk of the cost of the dec? What is to stop that same corp then to leave and keep an alt in there. They score isk and keep themselves safe.

Honestly some people...

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk

Corianna
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2013-04-05 19:12:00 UTC
Cannibal Kane wrote:


And where does this isk come from? Magic ISK is not a good idea stop thinking.


You're right, it is "magic ISK". The catch is, if no one fights, that ISK never makes it to the economy. If they do, they're essentially paid to PvP, earning ISK for every kill. The only difference between this and ratting/mission running is that the amount earned is finite, per war.

Incentive to fight is the goal, this is just a different carrot-on-a-string approach.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#23 - 2013-04-05 19:51:37 UTC
Corianna wrote:
Cannibal Kane wrote:


And where does this isk come from? Magic ISK is not a good idea stop thinking.


You're right, it is "magic ISK". The catch is, if no one fights, that ISK never makes it to the economy. If they do, they're essentially paid to PvP, earning ISK for every kill. The only difference between this and ratting/mission running is that the amount earned is finite, per war.

Incentive to fight is the goal, this is just a different carrot-on-a-string approach.


Dangers of manipulation exist if you generate ISK out of thin air, better to stick with just redistributing ISK generated by the agressor corp through war fees paid out to the defender (as I mentioned previously). i.e. what happens when goons shell corp A decs goon shell corp B specifically to create an ISK fountain?

Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#24 - 2013-04-05 20:01:39 UTC
celebro wrote:
I am sure this topic has been beaten to death already and no improvements to the wardec mechanics has been made yet.

The problems lies in the nature of war declaration, basically you declare war on corporations that obviously don't hold any sovereignty or risk much aside from POSes, which can be taken down easily anyways. Corporation members have nothing to lose by just dropping corp for a week. Wars are fought for sovereignty or assets so the mechanics sounds a little odd, if you think about it.

We need to incentivise those wardeced corporations and give them a reason to fight. One simple way that might work would be for the wardeced fees goes to Corporations that can give some incentive to fight with that little extra funds and wardeccing corps might actually take war declarations more seriously, as you are obviously just giving away isks to the 'enemy'.

A more holistic approach will be to make changes to POS and other mechanics connected to wardeccs. Make them more modular and easier to attack and harder to take down. Make anything to do with anchored structures more of a risk during wardeccs, whilst giving other advantages.

Make players take options so they can still hide in NPC corps , but make NPC corp players feel they are losing out, by hiding in their safe 'worlds'.







So you have consensual pvp now and that's not enough? Or are you just useless at pvp and need more and more easier targets like the rest of the pvp crowd on the server?

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.

Corianna
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2013-04-05 20:18:05 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:


Dangers of manipulation exist if you generate ISK out of thin air, better to stick with just redistributing ISK generated by the agressor corp through war fees paid out to the defender (as I mentioned previously). i.e. what happens when goons shell corp A decs goon shell corp B specifically to create an ISK fountain?




I've considered that possibility, and the % payout I suggested could always be adjusted down to combat that activity.

The payout ONLY applies to ships destroyed, thus if goon A decs goon B, goon B would have to sacrifice empty hulls for A to blow up. Since payout is based on hull value, an entity deccing itself would generate only a marginal gain, at best, considering how many hulls would have to be sacrificed to satisfy the applied bounty.



Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2013-04-06 00:45:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Cannibal Kane
Corianna wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:


Dangers of manipulation exist if you generate ISK out of thin air, better to stick with just redistributing ISK generated by the agressor corp through war fees paid out to the defender (as I mentioned previously). i.e. what happens when goons shell corp A decs goon shell corp B specifically to create an ISK fountain?




I've considered that possibility, and the % payout I suggested could always be adjusted down to combat that activity.

The payout ONLY applies to ships destroyed, thus if goon A decs goon B, goon B would have to sacrifice empty hulls for A to blow up. Since payout is based on hull value, an entity deccing itself would generate only a marginal gain, at best, considering how many hulls would have to be sacrificed to satisfy the applied bounty.





ISK should still not come from thin air. Remember they are trying to provide more isk sinks not add additional isk faucets.

You have bad ideas nuff said. And since your alt your opinion matters even less.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk

Maxpie
MUSE LLP
#27 - 2013-04-06 00:51:49 UTC
Making wars mean something is the right goal. The random nature of 99% of high sec wars just doesn't make any sense. I think people would stay and fight if the war wasn't some pointless war dec by some random corp looking to pop miners and indys. Heck, I've had wars where the aggressor never even logged on.

I just don't think this is the solution. I have no idea what the solution would be, maybe there isn't any.

No good deed goes unpunished

Tesal
#28 - 2013-04-06 01:04:48 UTC
Right now, people often don't even know game mechanics, or how to fit an appropriate ship. Its no wonder they drop corp and hide, even if they outnumber the enemy. They simply don't have what it takes to fight a war. They need basic FC skills and a basic ship doctrine. Here is a good start. Agony unleashed has pvp classes that have been around for a long time. People need to invest some time and energy in being ready for wars.
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2013-04-06 01:08:49 UTC
Tesal wrote:
Right now, people often don't even know game mechanics, or how to fit an appropriate ship. Its no wonder they drop corp and hide, even if they outnumber the enemy. They simply don't have what it takes to fight a war. They need basic FC skills and a basic ship doctrine. Here is a good start. Agony unleashed has pvp classes that have been around for a long time. People need to invest some time and energy in being ready for wars.


That is what I keep saying...

Wardecs are not the problem. People are.

I keep saying the same damn thing in every one of these ******** threads. It is people.. it is always people.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk

Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2013-04-06 01:39:45 UTC
The thing is NPC corps exist to protect the true new player (they're busy trying to figure out the game). So CCP would be suicidal to change NPC corps to benefit wars they're in any shape to participate in.

What I prefer is something like the FW system, but more for pewpewpewing. It would have a limit on skill training, as there's some players in NPC corps that's been in there for 5 years...with the skills to show for it. That way players can get in on the PvPing without risking all they own to do so.

It's not like those living in high-sec are allergic to PvP, its that it has to fit their training and interests. My toons are industrialists, and any PvP will take a backseat in leveling PvP skills. I'm leveling combat skills not so much for PvP, it's to get ready for level 4 missions to grind standings (need plenty for invention). No fun getting into a Drake and can't fit the gear needed deal. It got to be that way, because the skills to level industry compete with skills needed for PvP.

If CCP is truly interested in this...

http://www.gamebreaker.tv/mmorpg/ccp-wont-dumb-down-eve-online/

They would make it that the choices you make in EvE to specialize doesn't knock out the very PvP skills needed to PvP. Flight/fight skills need to be on a separate queue.

Then players in high-sec can get into the fray. Otherwise, we can't as we can't even fit our ships to fight!

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell

Senator Lennon
Blazing Sun
#31 - 2013-04-06 16:20:31 UTC
I think perhaps a point system based on wardecs might be interesting, I think what would really improve the system is some sort of feature limiting the ability of huge alliances picking random small newbie corps off the recruitment channel and wardec ransomming them, it's detrimental to the growth of the community.
Domina Trix
McKNOBBLER DRINKING CLAN
#32 - 2013-04-06 19:09:49 UTC
It is fortunate that cloning technology exists in EvE with all these dead horses being flogged...

Two of the defining characteristics of a carebear are wanting other players to play the way the carebear wants and whining on the forums for the game to change when they don't. Yet I see more threads on these forums from gankers than I do miners whining about wanting the game changed to suit them.

Felicity Love
Doomheim
#33 - 2013-04-06 21:49:07 UTC
"Wars" require that the "other guy" actually undocks and comes out to fight.

Fix that.

Roll

"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )

Previous page12