These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Wardecs (not safe for carebears)

Author
ShipToaster
#1 - 2011-10-16 02:10:49 UTC
Carebears and cowards always want wardecs to be rare and costly. Most of the other threads on wardecs are premised on this viewpoint. Increase costs, implement victory conditions and whines about unfairness. This thread is looking for different ideas instead of playing the same old tune.

A high sec wardec is just a way to remove concord interference. It is not an actual war and it should not be thought of as one. Probably best to call it something without the word war in it so newbs dont get confused. If people want other forms of high sec war then it should be in addition to current wardec system not in place of. Every time I see whines about faildecs or griefdecs it says to me that this system is working.

I dont think the current wardec system needs too much work or the massive changes that have been proposed. Exploits do need some work.

Here are a dozen points to get started with.

  1. There is no easy way to make victory conditions and they are not needed. All the ideas about making structures to kill, must have a pos to dec someone, basing it on kills, or calculating winners by isk have problems associated with them. The current no victory conditions are fine. Other conditions could be added as options if there is a demand for them but it must be remembered that many wars are not about winning but disruption and this cannot be easily quantified, and some wars success or failure can only be measured by the client who hired one side.

  2. Surrender and ransoms are pretty much useless in wars. Pay them and you will become known as an easy source of isk. I would still like to see them added as some peoples stupidity deserves to be milked.

  3. Basing costs on number of members is open to abuse with trials and alts, and is also likely to result in the formation of ever larger alliances. Small and medium sized mercs and griefers will consolidate making things even tougher for smaller sized groups that get decced.

  4. Massively increasing wardec costs is a bad idea as it will simply make high sec even safer and wars rarer. Same applies to counter bribing concord. This is something that needs to be avoided. There is also the value for money argument that once wardec costs reach a certain level you get better value for money by paying for suicide ganking instead. Wardec costs a billion a week or you pay for thirty hulks to be ganked instead, which choice would you make? If you can be on the receiving end of a wardec or suicide gankfest which would you prefer?

  5. You can argue that bigger wardec fees are a big isk sink but I would counter that by saying that a wardec is much better as it prevents massive amounts of isk being made in the first place.

  6. I would make the argument that the bigger the defender's membership is then the less the war should cost as the difficulty involved in fighting a massive organisation is a lot higher. At the very least the costs should stay the same as you are not deccing the members but the corp or alliance: if you are charged for deccing members instead of groups then I want to be able to select the members in the dec.

  7. We might also want to see more wars involving smaller groups who are not normally decced. We need to ensure that it is cost effective to dec them also. So make groups who have not been decced in a while really cheap to dec and show costs to dec somewhere so people know they are good value for money.

  8. As people in high sec are too used to utterly risk free PvE I suggest that this changes. The base war dec fees are reduced and the multiple dec modifiers are removed. Possibly replace this with a time modifier instead that reduces slowly to ensure that wars are spread around more (as in increase costs slightly the longer wars last, decrease this cost when not decced).

  9. If people or corps want to leave a war then charge them and their corp or alliance for the privilege and pay this amount to the aggressor. Something like one million plus the cost of your current clone to leave, with the same fee applied to your corp or alliance. A few hundred million if your corp leaves. Divide this among all deccers. If you cant pay then you cant leave (but letting people and corps go into negative isk if they cant pay would be good if they cant join anything else if in negative isk). EVE is about choices and consequences and avoiding wars should have some sort of penalty.

  10. I dislike the idea of anyone being immune to wardecs even those in npc corps (actual new players are an exception for a while). For people in npc corps, why not make individuals into a few non-starter npc corps deccable for a million isk and dont count them in any other calculations. Move all players over 90 days old into these non-starter npc corps. Allow the non-starter NPC corps member lists, ship flying and location to be visible to all (or just directors to reduce any server load). If you can infiltrate and spy on player corps then why make npc corps any different?

  11. We already have an option for making wars mutual on the defenders part and I would like to see a making wars permanent option on the attackers side. Make the wars last a minimum of a year but only cost the minimum amount, 52 weeks at 50 million currently and repay unused amounts if the defending corp or alliance folds. Another option would be to give bigger discounts for declaring longer time period wars, perhaps a 50% cost reduction for a war of six months and 25% for three months. Either of these would benefit the use of mercs and allow them to make better profits for a longer term commitment. It would also be very useful for those with an actual grievance or hatred of each other that really requires a longer term war.

  12. [*] Allowing other groups like mercs to be added to an in progress wardec on either side is a good idea but will be exploitable unless rigorously coded. I would leave it out for now.

.

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2 - 2011-10-16 05:05:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Sooo basically with all of this is you're saying that you want it to be easier for griefers and killmail padders to form wardecs, while also saying that no one should be safe from war decs and it should cost them a good amount of isk to opt out.

ShipToaster wrote:

There is no easy way to make victory conditions and they are not needed.


War needs a purpose. There is always a goal behind wars no matter where they happen.
Whether it's complete annihilation or gaining control of supplies, there's always a purpose and a goal.

Quote:
Surrender and ransoms are pretty much useless in wars. Pay them and you will become known as an easy source of isk. I would still like to see them added as some peoples stupidity deserves to be milked.


Yes, they are pointless, but only because there is no mechanic to support this but there should be. The aggressed should have a supported option to surrender because eve player can sometimes be douches, and there's no union/court/lawyers/United Nations to ensure the players follow the terms of a surrender

Quote:
Basing costs on number of members is open to abuse with trials and alts, and is also likely to result in the formation of ever larger alliances.


Agreed, to base a war dec of the number of members is rediculous. It shouldn't happen like that.

Quote:
Massively increasing wardec costs is a bad idea as it will simply make high sec even safer and wars rarer. Same applies to counter bribing concord.


I personally find it rediculous how low the cost of war deccing is. Essentially, when you pay to war dec someone you are bribing both concord and the faction to look the other way. Apparently, both the faction and concord are pretty cheap.
I think the price of a war dec should be quite costly.
War should be costly to suggest to the players forming the war dec that they better have a good cause.
A good cause would be disturbing an alliance high sec mining/missioning group to disrupt supplies.
Another good cause is to disrupt training corps for null sec alliances.
However, being able to wardec them for very low amounts of isk is just ludicrous.

Quote:
You can argue that bigger wardec fees are a big isk sink but I would counter that by saying that a wardec is much better as it prevents massive amounts of isk being made in the first place.


Actually, no it doesn't. If you did a survey you would find that null sec alliances and high sec alts in npc corps are probably making much more isk than any of the small corps that are getting decked for the sake of griefing or killmail padding.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3 - 2011-10-16 05:20:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Quote:
I would make the argument that the bigger the defender's membership is then the less the war should cost as the difficulty involved in fighting a massive organisation is a lot higher.


Hell no... Just cause your life is harder when you try to grief a larger corp doesn't mean it should cost any less, or any more. and it goes back to basing the costs off the number of member in a corp, which you seemed to be against further up the list.

Quote:
We might also want to see more wars involving smaller groups who are not normally decced.


Here you're basically saying that the game should give you mechanics to find the small corps that manage to not get war decced and make it cheaper for you to war dec them. If you want war you must pay for it reguardless of who it is. Price should never change reguardless of size and time since last war dec. You don't want the game to be easier for carebears, so we sure as hell aren't gonna let CCP make it easier for you.

Quote:
As people in high sec are too used to utterly risk free PvE I suggest that this changes. The base war dec fees are reduced and the multiple dec modifiers are removed.


I've actually been reading a lot of posts here lately stating that null sec is becoming just the same in the manner that they're over securing smaller zones in order to PvE and be able to make much more profit than is available in high sec. So some portions of null sec are assentially becoming less risk and more reward than high sec due to alliance security.
To the second sentence I quoted, again, you're trying to say it should be cheaper than the already ridiculously cheap war dec costs so that griefer and killmail padders pay less.

Overall with this statement, you seem to forget that the players running around griefing in high sec are doing it because it's less risky than low and null.
So in saying that the risks should be higher for pve in high sec, then you're contradicting yourself.
If you feel that wardeccing high sec corps should be cheaper so that high sec is more risky, then in that spirit I can counter that if you want to pvp you should be taking higher risks and doing pvp in low/null where you may actually encounter a hostile force. Instead, you'd rather stay in high sec and war dec the corps you see doing mining ops and missions because they're easy prey. Complete contradiction.

Quote:
If people or corps want to leave a war then charge them and their corp or alliance for the privilege and pay this amount to the aggressor.


Nope.... If you wanna wardec someone than you better dec a corp that you know is going to stick around. If you were in a low sec system and a massive fleet came in and started engaging you, but you were not allowed to flee because the gates were locked by game mechanics any time a conflict occured in a system, you'd be really pissed and proclaim to CCP that it's crap and players should be allowed to flee.
The two are one in the same. If players are allowed to flee from conflicts, then players should be allowed to flee from wardecs. If you can't find the right corp to wardec that won't leave, then go pvp in low sec and take some real risks.

Quote:
I dislike the idea of anyone being immune to wardecs even those in npc corps.


You're not even going to get support for this from most of the pvp players because they have alts in npc corps, and they're there for a reason.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4 - 2011-10-16 05:51:00 UTC
Quote:

We already have an option for making wars mutual on the defenders part and I would like to see a making wars permanent option on the attackers side. Make the wars last a minimum of a year but only cost the minimum amount, 52 weeks at 50 million currently and repay unused amounts if the defending corp or alliance folds. Another option would be to give bigger discounts for declaring longer time period wars, perhaps a 50% cost reduction for a war of six months and 25% for three months. Either of these would benefit the use of mercs and allow them to make better profits for a longer term commitment. It would also be very useful for those with an actual grievance or hatred of each other that really requires a longer term war.


Ok...trying to think of the best way to break this one down for you......

So basically, you've already stated further up the list that wars shouldn't be optional of anyone being decked, even npc corp members, and that players shouldn't be allowed to flee a war dec without paying a pretty substantial amount of money to leave.
And now you're trying to say "we already have an option for making wars mutual on the defender's part"..... Uhh, I must have missed the part where you were making it mutual, and now you're even going on to say that the attackers can make the war permanent.

To go further on this quote, you seem to think the cost of war goes down as the war goes on......Do you watch the news at all?
CCP has taken Eve and based it off an as realistic as possible concept by making almost everything player controlled that can't be overly taken advantage of. War never costs less and less, if anything, if should cost more and more the longer the deck last. Expecially since your war dec costs is paying concord and the faction to look the other way. In my mind a security force or faction would charge you more and more because you're disrupting their community, which in tern means you're disrupting the tax revinue the alliance is pulling in and making concord look bad cause you're blowing tons of crap up on their watch..
If you have a grievance or hatred to another corp, then you'll be willing to keep them decked no matter what the costs until they fold and dismantle.

Quote:
Allowing other groups like mercs to be added to an in progress wardec on either side is a good idea but will be exploitable unless rigorously coded. I would leave it out for now.


So on top of all the other crap you've spewed out so you can pew pew for less costs and risks, now you're saying that at some point in time their should be a merc system so you can hire a merc corp and bring them in on the war dec.... If you want them so bad, and they wanna do it so bad, then you can just pay them to join your corp. Seriously, you don't need any type of game mechanic for this, but I really hope they turn on you for being weak and having to get all your kills from defensless high sec corps.



You have contradicted yourself several times throughout this post.
You said that costs shouldn't be determined off the amount of players, then turned around and said that it should cost less to wardec larger corps cause it's more risky.
You suggested that wardecs would be optional for the decced corp well after you had said that everyone should be decable, even in npc corps, and should have to pay a good amount of money to get out.
There's more in there if anyone else wants to spot them out for me.

You have also contradicted the risk vs reward system.
You say that the reward is greater than the risks in high sec, so war deccing in high sec should be much easier to counter that, yet war deccing a high sec corp is a way for pvp'ers to get their reward for less risk by avoid low and null pvp.
You then say that war deccing a corp should, if anything, cost less, which as it sits, war decs are already overly cheap for what the pvp'ers are getting from them. So they're paying a small amount to get what they want.
You also say that players shouldn't be allowed to flee a war dec unless they pay a substantial amount, but, like I said earlier, I willing to bet that you wouldn't enjoy if CCP set it up so that systems locked everyone in when an engagement happened.

Just about everything you have said here has either contradicted something else you said, or contradicted mechanics of the game that exist.

If you want pvp to be cheap and easy to find, then join a null sec alliance and ask to be put on the front lines.

Apart from that, I dont' believe that any players in the game should be in support of people who thrive off high sec war decs.

Low sec players are taking heavy risks to pvp, null sec players are taking heavy risks to pvp, suicide gankers are even taking risks to pvp. However, people like you that thrive off of defenseless high sec corps should be forced to move into low sec if they wanna pvp.

I'M SICK AND TIRED OF LOW SEC AND NULL SEC PVP'ERS NOT NOTICING THAT THESE GUYS ARE TAKING LESS RISKS THAN ANYONE IN THE GAME JUST TO PAD KILLMAILS... IT'S TIME YOU GUYS NOTICE THAT PEOPLE LIKE THIS ARE WHAT IS DESTROYING THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE JOINING IN ON THE PVP.
Svenjabi Xiang
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#5 - 2011-10-16 06:45:46 UTC
I will freely admit I haven't read the previous set of arguments as they seem to be related to a point-by-point discussion with someone else. Consequently, I will simply put what I think is the case.

1.) Eve is a sandbox game. The importance to that fact is that people have all sorts of reasons to conflict with one another and I certainly have no expectation that a developer is going to encode either my specific gripe with someone else or to encode an enforcement of whatever victory condition may come out of the interaction, towards one side or the other. The request to have a predecided victory condition limits the reasons I can choose for doing whatever it is that I choose, and Eve stops being a sandbox in a large way.

2.) Eve has specific rules that preclude griefing, yet highly subjective enforcement of what "griefing" actually is. It is not griefing to continuously wardec a corp until it is forced to disband or run away. It is not griefing to follow a character around wardeccing whatever corps that character joins. It is griefing to do that to a player, because that's out-of-game. It is not griefing to wardec when you don't want to fight. This is a non-consentual PvP game. You can be wardecced because someone doesn't like your face or name. Any change to that changes Eve to an entirely different game, and one that I'd imagine quite a few would prefer not to be playing.

3.) Until extremely recently, alliance hopping to evade decs was not only against the rules in an amorphous sense, it was petitionable. The recent change has not happened because the devs want to turn the game into some version of concentual war, but are instead re-examining the wardec system and its abuses. The dec shield rule was apparently masking something that the GMs felt needed to be exposed in that process.

The simple fact is that Eve is a game where you can be challenged by anyone, for any reason, for any length of time, towards any intent (or none) and frankly, that's the way it should remain.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6 - 2011-10-16 06:57:46 UTC
Svenjabi Xiang wrote:
I will freely admit I haven't read the previous set of arguments as they seem to be related to a point-by-point discussion with someone else. Consequently, I will simply put what I think is the case.


Naa, my arguments weren't directed towards anyone specific, but were simply my thoughts on his suggestions.

I personnally prefer to do all my pvp'ing in null sec.

So I feel that these players who wardec high sec corps for the simple sake of griefing and/or killmail padding, while isn't an exploit, is taking advantage of what the war dec system was originally designed for.

I feel that more low and null sec pvp'ers should be in support of greatly revamping the war dec system in order to counter these high sec pvp'ers who are essentially getting free kills.

Any time I see some high sec baiter or deccer posting killmails in local on the pve fitted ship that he killed with a pvp fitted ship, or the indy ship he killed, I'm usually annoyed.

Not because they're griefing or because they're messing up the way someone else wants to play, but because they're putting as little risks into pvp as possible.

Yet, these are the same people that turn around and suggest that high sec pve'ers should have more risks and less rewards and basically saying that they should be the ones to give the risks factor.

To me they are contradicting the very thing that spews from their lack luster pvp mouths.

Just sayin......
ShipToaster
#7 - 2011-10-16 22:09:55 UTC
Just noticed that the first post has not formed the list properly and the last point should be 12 but is instead [ * ] and that point 10 should have read "For people in npc corps, why not make individuals in the non-starter npc corps deccable for a million isk and dont count them in any other calculations ". Forum is still a little buggy and ate the last corrections.

Joe Risalo wrote:
You have contradicted yourself several times throughout this post.


Contradictions are allowed here. Where did you get the idea that I was proposing a system of wardec changes that all had to be implemented? These were just individual points for discussion. Dont think you realised that.

You seem to miss the entire point of this thread, nothing I can do about that. Look at the other posts recently about wardecs and you will see a very strong carebear element in them but this is a post with a different viewpoint.

We disagree on things but that is fine with me.

.

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#8 - 2011-10-16 23:03:44 UTC
ShipToaster wrote:
Just noticed that the first post has not formed the list properly and the last point should be 12 but is instead [ * ] and that point 10 should have read "For people in npc corps, why not make individuals in the non-starter npc corps deccable for a million isk and dont count them in any other calculations ". Forum is still a little buggy and ate the last corrections.

Joe Risalo wrote:
You have contradicted yourself several times throughout this post.


Contradictions are allowed here. Where did you get the idea that I was proposing a system of wardec changes that all had to be implemented? These were just individual points for discussion. Dont think you realised that.

You seem to miss the entire point of this thread, nothing I can do about that. Look at the other posts recently about wardecs and you will see a very strong carebear element in them but this is a post with a different viewpoint.

We disagree on things but that is fine with me.


Yeah, I'd say we obviously disagree on the war deck system. You seem to feel that 2 million isk is too much while I seem to think its way too little. You seem to think that life should be easier for high sec griefers while I believe that you should be forced to pay a whole lot to pvp in high sec, it be mutual, and/or you be forced into low sec to pvp.

Just saying....
Nezumiiro Noneko
Alternative Enterprises
#9 - 2011-10-16 23:28:57 UTC
your item 11.....I would sign off on. Why? I have alt corp war dec main corp for 6 months to years at a discount rate and then done. Can't be war dec'ed moar and I'd save isk.


For a switch, war dec an empire corp who will fight back. War deccing a small mining or mission running corp or a one man.....them ditching corp should be expected. Keep on doing what you are doing, don't be suprised when you keep getting what you are getting for results. Find a corp that actually pvp's in empire, and you may get them to fight back.

Or go to 0.0. Half, if not more, of my targets on the combat char were a lovely shade of grey. NBSI.....live it love it. Sicne you have a desire to shoot bears, perfect fit for you. Kill sleepy ratters and once you work their macro setup botters all day long.
Baaldor
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#10 - 2011-10-17 00:21:49 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:


War needs a purpose. There is always a goal behind wars no matter where they happen.
Whether it's complete annihilation or gaining control of supplies, there's always a purpose and a goal.



The purpose, goal and reasoning is my own. It should not be based of some contrived criteria set by you or anyone else.
Goose99
#11 - 2011-10-17 00:32:51 UTC
Baaldor wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:


War needs a purpose. There is always a goal behind wars no matter where they happen.
Whether it's complete annihilation or gaining control of supplies, there's always a purpose and a goal.



The purpose, goal and reasoning is my own. It should not be based of some contrived criteria set by you or anyone else.


Go to low/null. Problem solved.Roll
Baaldor
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#12 - 2011-10-17 00:53:49 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Baaldor wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:


War needs a purpose. There is always a goal behind wars no matter where they happen.
Whether it's complete annihilation or gaining control of supplies, there's always a purpose and a goal.



The purpose, goal and reasoning is my own. It should not be based of some contrived criteria set by you or anyone else.


Go to low/null. Problem solved.Roll


So, what does your response have anything to do what I was specifically replying to.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#13 - 2011-10-17 01:42:37 UTC
Baaldor wrote:
Goose99 wrote:
Baaldor wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:


War needs a purpose. There is always a goal behind wars no matter where they happen.
Whether it's complete annihilation or gaining control of supplies, there's always a purpose and a goal.



The purpose, goal and reasoning is my own. It should not be based of some contrived criteria set by you or anyone else.


Go to low/null. Problem solved.Roll


So, what does your response have anything to do what I was specifically replying to.


What does your response have to do with what I had set forth?

The purpose, goal, and reasoning are your own, but the war dec system as is, is allowing to to make that purpose simple griefing or killmail padding.

However, if we were to dramatically increase the war dec cost from 2 million to at least 100 million, I bet you'd be willing to have a very specific, more valid purpose such as revenge, demoralizing an alliance training corp, disrupting alliance high sec mining and salvaging, or maybe removing a corporation from the equation to have control of a system in which they like to mine.

The choice is yours.
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#14 - 2011-10-17 01:46:20 UTC
Have you ever stopped to think where they would go if they had no way to stay safe if they wherent interested in fighting?

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

mxzf
Shovel Bros
#15 - 2011-10-17 02:17:08 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

I personally find it rediculous how low the cost of war deccing is. Essentially, when you pay to war dec someone you are bribing both concord and the faction to look the other way. Apparently, both the faction and concord are pretty cheap.
I think the price of a war dec should be quite costly.
War should be costly to suggest to the players forming the war dec that they better have a good cause.
A good cause would be disturbing an alliance high sec mining/missioning group to disrupt supplies.
Another good cause is to disrupt training corps for null sec alliances.
However, being able to wardec them for very low amounts of isk is just ludicrous.


This is so true it bears repeating.

Keep in mind that you are paying off law-enforcement officials to look the other way while you kill people. I know Eve/RL analogies are imperfect, but it's close enough to toss out there. Paying 2M for free reign to attack whoever you want is somewhat similar to a serial killer paying the police $100 to look the other way while they go on a killing spree. It's not a perfect analogy, but the concept of paying a pittance of 2M for the chance to kill whoever you feel like is ridiculous. It is Concord's job to protect people in highsec, that's what they're for, it shouldn't be so easy to attack people with the police looking the other way.

Wars shouldn't be "I'm bored, lets find some noobs/carebears to get some kills off of because they can't stop us", it should be a serious tactical decision for a solid and worthwhile reason (and greifing, kb-padding, and 'just because I can' are definitely not worthwhile reasons).
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#16 - 2011-10-17 02:22:12 UTC
mxzf wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

I personally find it rediculous how low the cost of war deccing is. Essentially, when you pay to war dec someone you are bribing both concord and the faction to look the other way. Apparently, both the faction and concord are pretty cheap.
I think the price of a war dec should be quite costly.
War should be costly to suggest to the players forming the war dec that they better have a good cause.
A good cause would be disturbing an alliance high sec mining/missioning group to disrupt supplies.
Another good cause is to disrupt training corps for null sec alliances.
However, being able to wardec them for very low amounts of isk is just ludicrous.


This is so true it bears repeating.

Keep in mind that you are paying off law-enforcement officials to look the other way while you kill people. I know Eve/RL analogies are imperfect, but it's close enough to toss out there. Paying 2M for free reign to attack whoever you want is somewhat similar to a serial killer paying the police $100 to look the other way while they go on a killing spree. It's not a perfect analogy, but the concept of paying a pittance of 2M for the chance to kill whoever you feel like is ridiculous. It is Concord's job to protect people in highsec, that's what they're for, it shouldn't be so easy to attack people with the police looking the other way.

Wars shouldn't be "I'm bored, lets find some noobs/carebears to get some kills off of because they can't stop us", it should be a serious tactical decision for a solid and worthwhile reason (and greifing, kb-padding, and 'just because I can' are definitely not worthwhile reasons).



Agreed.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2011-10-17 04:01:53 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
War needs a purpose. There is always a goal behind wars no matter where they happen.
Whether it's complete annihilation or gaining control of supplies, there's always a purpose and a goal.
The wardeccer defines the purpose. Whatever reason the wardeccer has is a valid reason to wardec. The game does not need to artificially define a reason. We don't need Warsong Gulch, we don't need capture the flag.
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#18 - 2011-10-17 04:22:23 UTC  |  Edited by: mxzf
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
War needs a purpose. There is always a goal behind wars no matter where they happen.
Whether it's complete annihilation or gaining control of supplies, there's always a purpose and a goal.
The wardeccer defines the purpose. Whatever reason the wardeccer has is a valid reason to wardec. The game does not need to artificially define a reason. We don't need Warsong Gulch, we don't need capture the flag.


If they have a valid reason for a wardec, then they won't have any issues paying more than chump change for it. Just about anything is worth 2M, I've tossed more than that away out of sheer boredom. If there's a valid reason for a war, great, just pony up and pay some real ISK for it.

Edit: Note, that I'm not trying to argue against wardecing for whatever reason you feel like, but it should be a real cost, it should have to be worth something to you to declare war on someone.

Personally, I think 50-100M/week should be bare minimum for a wardec. It's really not that much in the grand scheme, but it's not a complete pittance like 2M is. It makes wars atleast a bit of serious business, as well they should be.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2011-10-17 04:38:01 UTC
mxzf wrote:
If they have a valid reason for a wardec, then they won't have any issues paying more than chump change for it. Just about anything is worth 2M, I've tossed more than that away out of sheer boredom. If there's a valid reason for a war, great, just pony up and pay some real ISK for it.
I can agree the cost is too low.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#20 - 2011-10-17 05:18:02 UTC
mxzf wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
War needs a purpose. There is always a goal behind wars no matter where they happen.
Whether it's complete annihilation or gaining control of supplies, there's always a purpose and a goal.
The wardeccer defines the purpose. Whatever reason the wardeccer has is a valid reason to wardec. The game does not need to artificially define a reason. We don't need Warsong Gulch, we don't need capture the flag.


If they have a valid reason for a wardec, then they won't have any issues paying more than chump change for it. Just about anything is worth 2M, I've tossed more than that away out of sheer boredom. If there's a valid reason for a war, great, just pony up and pay some real ISK for it.

Edit: Note, that I'm not trying to argue against wardecing for whatever reason you feel like, but it should be a real cost, it should have to be worth something to you to declare war on someone.

Personally, I think 50-100M/week should be bare minimum for a wardec. It's really not that much in the grand scheme, but it's not a complete pittance like 2M is. It makes wars atleast a bit of serious business, as well they should be.


Apparently I'm not the only one that gets it and thinks war decs are too cheap allowing for them to be taken advantage of for griefing and km padding.

I'm almost certain that CCP didn't design war decs to be used like this...
123Next pageLast page