EVE General Discussion

That works for those who can afford 2 structures. I.e. not the CCP "POS lite" targets who I guess will be new players and "casuals".




Because the members of the racketing corp are rooted in it and will never be able to form a new one and thus delete any tracks. Don't think so.




And so, why a sandbox player who prefers to play PvP on markets and industry HAS to fight PvP in their sandbox AND also be put in the sandbox of someone else? Are they better to deserve that?




It's fully relevant. They want to implement a fail feature to replace a fail feature without asking themselves WHY people would want to accept a wardec with the current or future terms.
Refining fail still produces fail. Only fools believe that repeating the same things will deliver different results (you guess who invented this quote, it's not me).

The spaceships PvP friendly guys don't need a wardec to motivate them at all. Those who are not spaceship friendly just will dock and similar. Being in a one side deal is what makes even the non carebears not want to pretend to reply to such asymmetry.

Only way to really FORCE them to "PvP" is to implement in station PvP so whenever you log in, still at loading screen you get insta-ganked by a blob of "pro players". Let's see how good it'll do to the playerbase numbers though.

It's good to have some dev feedback that you're making these considerations.

Just please, please don't end up with a system that's very inhospitable for small corporations that want to wage war. Remember, declaring on a much larger entity is already a handicap in itself.

PS: any word on removing the 3-war limitation for corporations?

Thank you. I kind of suspected as much, but the wording used made it seem like it might have been intended to ensure that you couldn't get in and out of wars very quickly and if that were the case, I could think of several scenarios where such a system could be used to unduly block other people's options. If it's just an anti-spam system, then it's a non-issue.

Yes, it is a bit easy to game a ratio-based system, but on the other hand, that kind of gaming the system is not necessarily bad since it opens up a cottage industry for other corps and alliances to provide the padding and/or slimming effects. It's probably just me, but I really like systems that can be turned into player-run services of that kind.

Really, the only issue with this to my mind is one where a corp would stay small to keep the cost down while they dec a small corp, and then immediately accept back in all those who want to join the fight, but the kinds of limitations for corp-hopping we talked about during the round-table could potentially be employed here as well. Also, even if this becomes possible, that just means there is a bit of a counter to when a target corporation manages to rally a few thousand allies to roflstomp whomever wardecced them.

It's lovely how the twe two of you are so ready to "Though luck, HTFU, if you can't defend just close shop, just get more members, just hire PvPers" on those who won't be able to defend themselves while you go all comprehensive and lovely to find ways to make it as smooth and affordable as possible for the aggressors.


*engages Tippia schooling voice*

Guess what, if your 3 men docking station games harass corp can't take on a 100 men corp, though luck. ADAPT and OVERCOME, join a 100 men PvP corp, take the COSTS along with the opportunity.

Sucks eh?




Anyway hi sec failed both as basic retribution system (can be gamed so much to make it pointless).
Bounty system failed as it can be so easily gamed.
Aggression mechanics partially failed because of so many rules and they don't scale up to multiple people.

Wardecs failed to the point that PvP corps have to resort attacking 1 man nobodies.

Educate me on why somebody should care about your ability to make hi sec pointless in such complicate ways.

Just get rid of hi sec completely, everybody who undocks is fair game and that's it.

You want your effing HARD MODE EVE IS REAL game? Then implement it already, like all the other free for all PvP games do.

Pity you didn't address that whole "unlimited allies" thing which is gonna kill war decs.

You're silly. Just because a corporation isn't raking in tens of billions every week, doesn't mean that it's not being run well. There are newer players who can't grind hundreds of millions per day. There are also corporations that don't concentrate on money making (such as, gasp, my very own). Being new, or being someone whose sole concern isn't lining the wallet with billions in cash, doesn't necessitate being bad. These corporations have aspirations, drives, and exist in the same competitive environment that everyone else inhabits. Sometimes, these corporations need the help of people with guns.

You're not going to get very far on such sweeping generalizations.

Edit: Tippia, wouldn't linking the war fee to the amount of destruction done, you know, kind of defeat the concept of war in the first place? "Oh, you killed 800 million worth of stuff, now pay CONCORD 800 million" would be kind of ridiculous. That idea is pretty bad from all standpoints. Besides, it could be easily circumvented by zeroing out the wallet and/or making new corporations constantly.

I’d like to add a couple of my thought on the new war-dec system. My only experiences of war-decs are being in a corp that is decced, so forgive (yeah right, flame away) if I am ignorant of how the mechanics actually work.

I’d like to see consequences of starting a war. From what I understand, the aggressor starts a war and if they don’t like the way things are going, they can just let it lapse after the 7 days is up. What I’d like to see is the defender be given the option to keep the war going. I know that the defenders could just dec the aggressors back but if the defender is a 10-man corp and the aggressor is a 1,000-man corp, the cost would be over ½ a billion ISK.

So give the defenders the option to declare a war for free. Or for the same cost as it cost the aggressors (if less than the cost to start a war). Or even make the aggressors continue to pay.

So if you declare a war, be sure you can win it or it may bite you in the arse.

Allies of the defenders should be able to continue to help out the defenders (though they are now the aggressors) but should also be able to opt out or renegotiate their payment now the war has changed from one of defence to one of aggression.

I would also like to see a permanent agreement for a corp to have allies. You pay another corp a weekly or monthly fee and if you are war-decced, they automatically get drawn in to the war as your allies. This information should be available so that when you are thinking of war-deccing someone, you know who else you are starting a war with.

Obviously this will give merc groups a way to earn by offering protection to those corps who can’t defend themselves. The defenceless corps can protect themselves from decs as aggressors will see that they have allies ready and waiting.

It’ll also give high-sec war-dec corps ways of setting up protection rings. They start a war on a corp and as part of the surrender terms, they get their targets to accept (and pay) them as their protectors. So, as long as they pay, they don’t get decced by them and they get defended (possibly) if other entities dec them.

That could be a good start.




This would be akin to implementing RL mafia and racketing in a game. As person forced to live in a country completely infected by both of them, I hate this very concept with my soul.

The attitude you have shown till now is not conducting with your words.




No I quoted another player talking about it. So guess what, you should also go back and read what others have written so far.

I can't support a game teaching players the mafia mindset as baseline for new / defensless players, it's an awful cancer for the society and unlike other roleplayed features (i.e. killing somebody in PvP) it does not easily go off once you log off, it sticks.