These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fanfest: War Declarations

First post
Author
gfldex
#321 - 2012-03-26 16:56:22 UTC
Tippia wrote:
By the way, someone at the roundtable floated the idea of having merc/alliance payment being on an on-going “per ISK destroyed” basis, which will be made possible with the new war report system. It has a few other issues (such as accidentally running someone's wallet dry by killing too much…), but some solutions were also discussed. This would make it far easier to pay exactly how much you want (which could be very little) for the amount of destruction you wish the enemy to suffer.


A long long time ago (note the music playing in your head) I was with Praetorian Industry (we never build anything) and beside being a quasi-subdevision of MASS, we did some merc work and had no problem with an informal agreement. After all we showed our customer that we are able and willing to destroy ships in space and it might be a risky move to not pay us.

What we had a problem with was providing evidence of kills. Making confirmed kills visible to contractees or even the general public could help to spot kill forgery. It's a bit silly to have to open the ingame browser to see ingame kills in a OOG killboard anyways.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.

gfldex
#322 - 2012-03-26 17:15:07 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

You're silly.


I would prefer if you would leave personal attacks where they belong to.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

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.


In a game where a new player can make 20M in one hour with lvl2 missions (And yes, I tried with a new char I made with one of them fancy 60day trials. Sadly I can't tell you how to do that because I'm "silly". Insulting folk wont make you friends, you know.) not having a few billion laying around _as_a_co-operation_ makes you bad players. Point blank. ISK is easy and when the rules of the game favour those with ISK (when did it not?) any good player has very good reason to get rich. One of the things that makes good leadership is the ability to provide motivation to your member base. That may even be the motivation to make ISK. Getting knowledgeable players into your corp is another objective for your leadership team. The players you recruit are the players you play with.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:
These corporations have aspirations, drives, and exist in the same competitive environment that everyone else inhabits.


That's what EVE used to be. We had meaningful gameplay for players who wanted to be mercs. Merc corps where competing with each other over customers. Then CCP turned highsec into carebear land and those merc corps pretty much vanished. You are asking for competition? Inferno will deliver.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.

gfldex
#323 - 2012-03-26 17:34:47 UTC
Gaspod TWD wrote:
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.


So the G0p-St0p CEO would cause The Chain Reaction of Exponatioal Wardecs by the press of a single button? Trust me, it's much more fun when the G0p-St0p CEO does not know what he just started. Informal agreements are fun because they create uncertainty and drama. We need more player interaction, not less.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.

gfldex
#324 - 2012-03-26 17:39:54 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
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.

Dude this is a video game.


If you threaten his ISK printing machine of capital BPO research, the King of Carebear (and unreasonable reasoning) goes into full forum attack mode. (I'm assuming that the char in question is still in the hand of the player that was in control when he was in Dark-Rising.) Telling a carebear that a video game is a video game is as useful ask asking Fox News for credibility.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#325 - 2012-03-26 17:48:24 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Glad you found the post with the part it explicitly quoted. Now on the next task: read the other posts off the same poster
…except of course that you didn't explicitly quote that post, and except that you are still saying something that was never said by the person you were referring to when you said it (and no matter what, you said it — no attribution or quotation was used). The latter is a strawman, no matter how much you try to wiggle out of it; the former is you moving the goal posts — another fun fallacy.

Quote:
If there was plenty of motivation, then why are they changing it?
Because there were exploits with the old systems that were better built out than policed out. The problem here is that you're making absolute statements (which, as the saying goes, are absolutely false): you're painting a picture of “no motivation” from “some lacked motivation”. The motivations were always there; those motivations are still there; and now they add a few more.

Quote:
EvE does last years
EVE last as long as the game lasts, just like GTA3 and it teaches you how to play the game, just like GTA3 does. So, again: why is it not horrid that GTA3 teaches you to run over old ladies for cash? And no, people do not generally suffer from the borderline personality disorders required to have game and real life get mashed up the way you're suggesting. You're not using yourself as a point of reference here, I hope?

gfldex wrote:
A long long time ago (note the music playing in your head) I was with Praetorian Industry (we never build anything) and beside being a quasi-subdevision of MASS, we did some merc work and had no problem with an informal agreement. After all we showed our customer that we are able and willing to destroy ships in space and it might be a risky move to not pay us.

What we had a problem with was providing evidence of kills. Making confirmed kills visible to contractees or even the general public could help to spot kill forgery. It's a bit silly to have to open the ingame browser to see ingame kills in a OOG killboard anyways.
The way I understood it, that war information — including the continuous accumulation of kills and losses — would be available pretty much directly from the corp info screen, so you'd have exactly what you're asking for. That's why this guy at the roundtable suggested that they leveraged that internal data connection to pretty much bill the contractee on the fly based on some percentage of destroyed value (determined by the contract, with some max expenses to limit how much you get sucked dry and with the ability to renegotiate that limit).
My Neutral Toon
Doomheim
#326 - 2012-03-26 17:53:17 UTC
They need to re-design EVE to be more new-casual-player friendly. Like WoW, eventually EVE will guide your through the game and hold your hand.

...Can't. Tell. If ...Troll? Or Serious....

Butt Hurt about Harrasment? Read first GM post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=88362&find=unread

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#327 - 2012-03-26 19:39:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
gfldex wrote:


If you threaten his ISK printing machine of capital BPO research, the King of Carebear (and unreasonable reasoning) goes into full forum attack mode. (I'm assuming that the char in question is still in the hand of the player that was in control when he was in Dark-Rising.) Telling a carebear that a video game is a video game is as useful ask asking Fox News for credibility.



Kings of carebears don't join Dark Rising as early as they can't even still fly a T1 fit Rifter nor stick in Dark Rising from when they were based in a Gallente Hi sec system to when they moved to OMS to when they moved to Esesier to when they moved to Taff and then to 0.0.

Sure I always loved industry to the point you can recall or ask the chief industry guy how I pushed several times to let my industry alts in and - how peculiar - I spent ALL my ISK to buy my first capital BPO exactly to make stuff for Dark Rising (for free).

Sadly - and I sent the evemail to everyone about it (if I recall correctly) - one day my RL life stopped letting me play enough to be of any worth in DR and *with huge pain as the DR guys were a cool bunch* I had to leave and forever be doomed to be "casual".

When I get the DR emails about returning back to the corp I always return back to the old times and if one day I manage to be free again I'll definitely ask to return there regardless in which hi / low / 0.0 sec system they'll be at that time.

Anyway if you think all of this = king of carebears, be my guest, I'd like to see how many kings of carebears do all of this.
Brom MkLeith
Epsilon Inc
#328 - 2012-03-27 15:21:03 UTC
Geister Bob wrote:
Size of defender corp is a modifier for cost of war. More expensive for a bigger corp. You are paying for more war targets. small (5man corps) are almost never decc'd. Therefore helps expand war.


This of course should be the other way around! The agressor should pay a fee based on the number of members the agressing corp has. Otherwise it will be an extorsion-fest for the griefing, bigger corps. Also: during the war, members of the agressing corp can leave, but none can join. (Corp being decced: maybe other way around...)


Nice. Certainly make it so that the aggressors membership is capped yet allow the defender to bring in all the new pilots that they want. Then, the aggressor only pays for the war decc on the original number of pilots. That's fair enough. Nobody wants to pick up the tab for party crashers.

Brom MkLeith
Epsilon Inc
#329 - 2012-03-27 15:32:08 UTC
Gummy Plaude wrote:
I have mixed feelings here.

War is about objectives. Wardecs still haven't any objectives other than metagaming ie extorsion, pvp or plain grief.

In my opinion Corporations should choose to commit into the War system by gaining access to certain ISK faucets and facilities or stay in a neutral status by renouncing those goodies.

One of the main advices given to new players is to join a corporation, but for a large part of hisec corporations wardecs are periods where they're strongly encouraged not to undock. I can't see this changing with the new system.


Thank you. Show me the benefit of joining a high sec corp or alliance where you are constantly in danger of getting jumped because of high sec griefing war deccs? If you are an industrial player then there would be no benefit to joining a high sec corp or alliance unless it was a mega.
Wolfgang Helm
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#330 - 2012-03-27 15:42:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Wolfgang Helm
The problem seems to be that the aggressor corp can use the War Dec system to grief because they have nothing to lose from a War Dec.

Why not make part of the fee paid to War Dec a prize? If the aggressor kills more than they lose or forces the defender to capitulate, they get a rebate of part of the War Dec fee. If the defender kills more or the aggressor gives up the War Dec, the defender wins the ISK.

I would expect a little more thought on the mechanics of determining who wins or loses, maybe aggressor needs to destroy 1.5x what the defender destroys. And you could measure in ship value or ship m3 or number of ships - let's find an appropriate metric.

The core is - get the aggressor to put some skin in the game. Make it hurt to War Dec and lose. The amount doesn't need to be huge because the hurt will be the idea that the defender corp gets the cash. Nobody wants to pay money to the target.

Yes the defender could just dock up. Well, then the aggressor better find a POS or something to kill or lose his cash. That is the risk the aggressor takes in starting a war.
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#331 - 2012-04-26 21:14:18 UTC
I have a question:

If someone formed a corp of say 100 or so alt accounts, would they be able to make a viable occupation of just offering members to corps getting dec'ed to drive up the costs of the aggressor?

Seems like this could be a big problem.

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#332 - 2012-04-27 00:11:11 UTC
Better money-making would be to create an Alliance called Decshield LLC. and then offer membership to corporations for 5-10M ISK per month. Such an alliance should be able to balloon to 10K members quite quickly.
FlamesOfHeaven
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#333 - 2012-04-27 00:16:53 UTC
This is good stuff, force the high sec corps to actually group in alliances and maybe one day their head will actually switch on and think "hey, we got a decent amout of ppl and pvpers to actually try out lowsec/nullsec "...

Corbin Blair
Doomheim
#334 - 2012-04-27 01:07:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Corbin Blair
Geister Bob wrote:
Size of defender corp is a modifier for cost of war. More expensive for a bigger corp. You are paying for more war targets. small (5man corps) are almost never decc'd. Therefore helps expand war.


This of course should be the other way around! The agressor should pay a fee based on the number of members the agressing corp has. Otherwise it will be an extorsion-fest for the griefing, bigger corps. Also: during the war, members of the agressing corp can leave, but none can join. (Corp being decced: maybe other way around...)

I agree. It does kind of encourage zerging smaller corps.

Wolfgang Helm wrote:
The problem seems to be that the aggressor corp can use the War Dec system to grief because they have nothing to lose from a War Dec.

Why not make part of the fee paid to War Dec a prize? If the aggressor kills more than they lose or forces the defender to capitulate, they get a rebate of part of the War Dec fee. If the defender kills more or the aggressor gives up the War Dec, the defender wins the ISK.

I would expect a little more thought on the mechanics of determining who wins or loses, maybe aggressor needs to destroy 1.5x what the defender destroys. And you could measure in ship value or ship m3 or number of ships - let's find an appropriate metric.

The core is - get the aggressor to put some skin in the game. Make it hurt to War Dec and lose. The amount doesn't need to be huge because the hurt will be the idea that the defender corp gets the cash. Nobody wants to pay money to the target.

Yes the defender could just dock up. Well, then the aggressor better find a POS or something to kill or lose his cash. That is the risk the aggressor takes in starting a war.

In other words you want people to be rewarded free money for completely avoiding risk while doing literally nothing. Go back to WoW.

Edit: And the attackers have exactly as much to lose as the defender. Wars go both ways. The attackers can't do anything the defender can't, except produce normal levels of testosterone, but that's not really Eve's fault.
Iamien
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#335 - 2012-07-10 15:10:22 UTC
This went so well.