EVE Information Portal

Challenge...accepted: http://eveboard.com/pilot/Zedrik_Cayne

Hey look...Exhumer 5...Perfect refine for a bunch of stuff. Orca, transports, freighters. PE5 is on the horizon somewhere.

Another thing about: "The sky will fall because goons got so many members!!!". How many of those 6000 members are subed and have more then 80000SP?

From my experience an oldish corp will have a ration of 1:5 in active accounts to lapsed accounts.

The reason why this game is so awesome is because YOU don't get to make that choice. If you are so averse to PVP you should stop investing time and money into this game and get out.

Also, all your whining about miners being shafted because of this wardec change is bullshit since miners just get ganked by T3 Bc's or destroyers, no war decs are involved.

You Sir are wrong. The QEN referes to characters, not accounts. On top of that I wouldn't count trial accounts (a few thousand) into that figure. And you ignore alts accounts. Look at all those 2 char corps that run a highsec research POS. Guess where the main sits. The QEN further doesn't look at botters. As the tragedy that was the alliance panel has made clear there are botters ... err ... unfortunate players with 22 accounts.

Bring me reliable figures about actual _players_ with actual subscriptions. Anything else is just speculation.

You should probably also make sure that only one character from an account is being counted as well as not counting members from accounts that have lapsed.

Also, while an aggressor cannot call mercs directly, it doesn't seem like that would really matter. All they need to do is get a merc corp or a friend's corp to simply declare on the defender. It seems like very little would be lost in not being formal allies.

Also, I agree with whoever suggested that surrender should be a formal contract that could include either items or isk, also in that, make the terms flexible. Let the defender negotiate more cash for more weeks of peace if that is what they want. In fact, that would give defenders are good reason to mutually declare. A decs B, B makes it mutual. B does well against A. A drops their dec after first week. B chooses to continue until A is forced to surrender to them. B then demands a 2 months of peace from A in addition to a fat payout. A lot could be added to this system in time. Demands that a corp not fly in certain systems for certain time frames. Or in place of a single payout, force a corp pay tribute every month, either in isk or minerals, maybe even finished ships. The possibilities are endless.

I'm not convinced that once you implement these changes you will put significant effort in this system again for the next X years. So, before you stop playing with this code for the time being, put an isk collateral in the war dec (about four or five times the initial cost).

If the defender surrenders in any amount of weeks, the attackers get the collateral back. Otherwise, if the attackers decide to stop paying the bills they loose the collateral to Concord.

Edit: on a second thought, if the defending corp disbands/go inactive, I'd call the war a success on the attacker point of view. This should be taken into consideration.

I'm not sure if I can agree with the direction they are wanting to take the war dec system... If the price of a war dec is based on the number of players, how many billions will it take per week to war dec the larger alliances in New Eden? How are these changes going to be any better than the existing system if no one can afford to declare war against the oppressive power-blocs like that?

This will likely be the death of small corps/alliances in hi-sec.

If anything, the system should be based on the disparity of the number of members between the aggressor and the defender. Say for instance, if a huge alliance of 6000 members wanted to war dec an alliance of 40 members then their price could be 6000 (number of aggressors) / 40 (number of defenders) x base war dec price. Making it more painful for an huge alliance that can STILL likely afford the cost if they really want to go to war with the small corp. On the flip side, if the 40 man alliance wanted to dec the huge alliance... 40 / 6000 x base war dec price would make it so the smaller corp would actually be able to afford to go to war. While such a huge disparity would make the war dec cost to the smaller alliance trivial, perhaps the base price for war deccing could be modified in such situations to implement both a price ceiling and price floor. I know my suggestion obviously isn't perfect, but what they are proposing will make it impossible for smaller groups to independently exist without getting wiped out by huge alliances that barely have to pay a pittance for the right to obliterate them.

While 40 people may not actually be able to do more than annoy the huge alliance, they should still be able to declare war against them if they want. The greater portion of New Eden's population is made up of these smaller corporations/alliances and I hate to see such an unfair advantage handed to the power blocs.

All in all I like the system. Only problem with the existing fee structure is it makes the very large alliances effectively wardec immune by pricing smaller entities out of the game.

I'd suggest a cap of 500m per week no matter how large the target is. (ie above 1000 members it doesn't get any more expensive to dec).

This would still allow a multiplier to happen with a single entity declaring multiple wars but wouldn't make it relatively impossible for a smallish aggressor to dec a large alliance (as is the effective case without a cap) since 3b+ per week is clearly a crazy charge to dec the largest alliances.

As a point of principle large alliances must count their membership and ability to form pvp defense gangs to be their defense against hostile wardecs ratherr than simply hiding behind inflated fees.

The point of the new system is so people commit to their actions. Also, having the merc corp be able to collect recurring fees encourages them to prolong the war, which is not what the defender hired them to do in the first place. It also reduces the attractiveness of being a ally to random unrelated corps, just to "get on a war and get some free kills" for no fee at all, as that becomes a commitment as well.

This is bullshit!!!
Because attacker does not have commitment at all.
He just don't pay and its over.

This all is one big bullshit.