These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

500m to declare war on Goonswarm? (AKA: why are small corps penalised by the wardec system?)

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#81 - 2012-08-15 17:27:50 UTC
READY TO TAKE ON GOONSWARM

BUT THE COST OF TWO TO THREE TIER 3 BATTLESHIPS IS FAR TOO STEEP.
Cadfael Maelgwyn
Doomheim
#82 - 2012-08-15 17:28:29 UTC
What, is this thread still going?

Or did one of you dirty necroposters get to it? Evil
Tiger Would
Doomheim
#83 - 2012-08-15 17:29:53 UTC
its necro when people stop posting.

Once you think you have it all, you have actually become ignorant towards everything else.

T. Would
Cadfael Maelgwyn
Doomheim
#84 - 2012-08-15 17:33:31 UTC
Tiger Would wrote:
its necro when people stop posting.

Looks like the OP resurrected it about a week after the last post, according to the timestamps.
Rordan D'Kherr
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#85 - 2012-08-15 17:46:51 UTC
there was no request for donations, I am disappointed now and declare this thread dead.

Don't be scared, because being afk is not a crime.
Lady Whipcrack
Doomheim
#86 - 2012-08-15 19:45:33 UTC
Kristof Atruin wrote:
I think you've answered your own question. Making it more expensive to wardec a larger corporation gives an incentive to grow your corporation. The opposite is also true. When non-eve players read stories about eve, they're reading about the large null alliances. That's what brings in new players. CCP obviously wants people to play with others rather than play alone with their alts.


Well, CCP have long said they want to encourage more 'small gang' warfare, and give smaller entities valuable roles outside of 1000 v 1000 man fleet warfare in 0.0 - which, of course, plenty of people find extremely boring.

Wardecs should not be cheaper for the larger entity to initiate. It cannot be logical for an 8000 man alliance to pay vastly less for the same wardec as a 50 man corp. It makes absolutely no sense.

If a huge corporation or alliance wants to dec a small corp, it costs them nothing. The same in reverse costs vastly more. How does that make any sense? It's ridiculous.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#87 - 2012-08-15 19:48:07 UTC
you pay less isk, you get less targets

makes perfect sense
Tiger Would
Doomheim
#88 - 2012-08-15 19:48:39 UTC
Cadfael Maelgwyn wrote:
Tiger Would wrote:
its necro when people stop posting.

Looks like the OP resurrected it about a week after the last post, according to the timestamps.



Maybe he had to do the dishes which piled while playing....

Once you think you have it all, you have actually become ignorant towards everything else.

T. Would
Lady Whipcrack
Doomheim
#89 - 2012-08-15 19:51:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Whipcrack
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
you pay less isk, you get less targets

makes perfect sense


It makes no sense. From an RP perspective, you are paying for CONCORD licences for your pilots. Why should an 8000 man alliance pay vastly less for the same war as a 30 man corp?

So we have the crazy situation where the same war is vastly cheaper for the larger entity to initiate, while at the same time creating needless ISK barriers for smaller entities which serve to 'protect' larger ones, who least need the 'protection' and would probably quite enjoy the targets anyway as a break from 0.0 blobbage.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#90 - 2012-08-15 19:54:38 UTC
500 million isk is not that expensive. I could pay for a few of these wars myself.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Lady Whipcrack
Doomheim
#91 - 2012-08-15 19:58:58 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
500 million isk is not that expensive. I could pay for a few of these wars myself.


The number itself isn't the real issue though, the point is that the same war is vastly cheaper for the larger entity to initiate. How is that anything other than completely crazy?

It's just a kind of needless slap in the face for small corporations, and a pointless ISK barrier that doesn't need to be there. It's kind of comical but also a bit tragic when you realise they didn't consider this before implementing this system. Or maybe they did but felt that large alliances needed cheaper wardecs than 10 man corps... really?
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#92 - 2012-08-15 20:01:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
From a gameplay perspective, you are paying for targets. Pay less isk, get less targets. It was implemented not to benefit 0.0 organizations (they weren't affected either way), but to incentivize highsec corporations to declare war on each other instead of just attack the most targets they can get for their trade hub camping wardec buck. And, through this, increase player-generated content in highsec.

500 million isk is a hilariously low fee compared to the amount of isk needed to wage war of any sort of consequence upon a major nullsec alliance. 500mil is SBUing one of hundreds of systems. 500 mil is losing a handful of T1 battleships. 500 mil is losing one Loki. If you can't afford 500 mil, then there's no way you'd pose a threat no matter what the wardec fee is.
Lady Whipcrack
Doomheim
#93 - 2012-08-15 20:08:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Whipcrack
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Makes perfect sense. From a gameplay perspective, you are paying for targets. Pay less isk, get less targets.

500 million isk is a hilariously low fee compared to the amount of isk needed to wage war of any sort of consequence upon a major nullsec alliance. 500mil is SBUing one of hundreds of systems. 500 mil is losing a handful of T1 battleships. 500 mil is losing one Loki. If you can't afford 500 mil, then there's no way you'd pose a threat no matter what the wardec fee is.


You seem to be confusing 0.0 territorial war with empire war. People don't declare war in empire to then go and SBU systems in 0.0 - so there is no point comparing the costs.

This is very simple. If a major alliance wardecs a tiny corp, they pay 50m ISK. If that same corp wants to return the wardec a few weeks later, they have to pay 500m.

That's a system blatantly skewed in favour of large entities, which I don't think is appropriate or a good thing for the game. Large entities enjoy empire wardecs as a break from 0.0 grind, and smaller entities can have fun in their BC's without being bridged on by 100 people.

To some young corporations, 500m a week isn't sustainable. Why should they be prevented from a legitimate wardec against an entity that can wardec them for almost nothing? The system is clearly unbalanced.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#94 - 2012-08-15 20:20:23 UTC
Lady Whipcrack wrote:
This is very simple. If a major alliance wardecs a tiny corp, they pay 50m ISK. If that same corp wants to return the wardec a few weeks later, they have to pay 500m.

That's a system blatantly skewed in favour of large entities, which I don't think is appropriate or a good thing for the game. .

You're right, it is very simple.
People make wardecs so that they can gain legitimate war targets to shoot in highsec.
The tiny corp gets thousands of targets for its wardec, the large alliance gets only a small handful.
Hence, a scaling fee reflecting the relative value of what the 'aggressing' party gains.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#95 - 2012-08-15 20:26:24 UTC
Because stupidly large alliances don't want PvP. duh

/end topic.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#96 - 2012-08-15 20:43:03 UTC
This is what happens when you elect big alliance holding idiots into the CSM.

LOL, you get what you voted for!
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#97 - 2012-08-15 20:52:27 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
This is what happens when you elect big alliance holding idiots into the CSM.

LOL, you get what you voted for!


Yeah, because the CSM code the game.
Oh wait.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
arcca jeth
Dark Alliance
#98 - 2012-08-15 20:55:10 UTC
Lady Whipcrack wrote:
Please tell me how this new wardec system is supposed to be 'better'?

Apart from the obvious minor benefit that war is slightly easier to administer, it seems setup to protect large alliances. Not that alliances even have to be that large before war costs become painful for smaller corporations.

So please explain to me how this is an improvement on the old system. For everyone apart from massive alliances, that is.

In short, it's vastly more expensive to declare war for smaller entities. Why? It's not like 0.0 alliances don't enjoy targets in empire as a break from 0.0 blobbage, so this change seems to benefit no-one (apart from Solar Citizens)

edit: he's a simple suggestion: the cost of wardecs should be based on the size of the corporation/alliance making the declaration, not the alliance you are wardeccing... if you want 8000 people to have a license to gank in empire, pay more for it... surely that makes vastly more sense than the current system and allows cost to scale with affordablity more pragmatically

Wardecs should not be vastly cheaper for the larger entity to initiate. It cannot be logical for an 8000 man alliance to pay vastly less for the same war as a 50 man corp. It makes absolutely no sense.


I made this argument in the past a few times. Larger Alliances and corps have more access to capital to spend. I personally thought the old system was better. They should have kept it the way it was then just add the ally system.
arcca jeth
Dark Alliance
#99 - 2012-08-15 20:57:39 UTC
I guess you could look at it this way though. If you wardec goons for a high price. You expect to make that back when you pop one of their freighters coming from Torrinos to Jita. So risk the isk, war dec them. Profit?!
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#100 - 2012-08-15 20:58:24 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:
This is what happens when you elect big alliance holding idiots into the CSM.

LOL, you get what you voted for!


Yeah, because the CSM code the game.
Oh wait.

honda accord and late night alliance; masters of the supercap blob lol