Player Features and Ideas Discussion

No. Empires do not govern system security, CONCORD does, a third party organization independent of imperial politics enforces system security. this idea makes no sense

You're swaying me.

If a newbie wants to avoid wars, they stay in the NPC corps until they're ready to go bang it up.

For low SP dudes making their first corp ... as long as Aura pops on to explain, "Making a corp is a fun and exciting prospect. Beware, New Eden is unforgiving. As soon as you create your new corporation, you'll be open to war declarations from other corporations. Before embarking upon this path, ensure that you completely understand the concept of war declarations, especially in empire space."

I suppose that's my only concern. That newbies know what they're getting into. Once they've made that choice with all the information at their fingertips, then all is cool and well.

So yeah, with that caveat, a lower corp-to-corp wardec cost I can accept and understand. 5-10M ISK. Flat rate.

(I still support a heft corp-to-alliance or alliance-to-alliance wardec flatrate.)

There are still issues with putting a large flat fee on alliance war declarations. Anyone can form an alliance if they want and there's no requirement that an alliance have multiple corps in it. For example my current alliance contains 14 people only 7 on whom are active. Should it cost the same to declare war on my alliance as it costs to declare war on an alliance with thousands of people in it who are already the subject of multiple wars?

The problem there is the opposite of putting a high flat rate on corp wars. Anyone could just get themselves an alliance for a billion isk then suddenly its hugely more expensive to dec your 10 man industrial corp and because you're already not particularly attractive targets for wars (low numbers + industry = horrible waste of time and money) you've just decreased the chances of you ever experiencing war just by paying money. However for big alliances who are actually attractive targets people are already going to be willing to pay hundreds of millions of isk to fight you anyway, particularly in the case of the larger highsec war alliances who have money to burn.

Also wars aren't always just strong aggressor declares war on weak defender, aggressor wins and lets the war expire when they are bored. All kinds of crap can end up happening with people declaring war by accident, or deciding that they have such superior numbers that they are going to show those smack talking canflippers who's boss only to retract two days later after suffering a hundred losses in 48 hours and you end up with counter-decs and multiple involved corps and alliances and mercenaries and people paying ransoms. Those are the kind of things that make highsec wars fun to participate in and putting a big bar in front of alliances saying "YOU MUST BE THIS RICH TO RIDE THIS TRAIN" isn't cool.

How it is currently the cost is high enough that for wars against alliances the money has to come from somewhere, if you want to run multiple simeltaneous alliance wars all the time you do need an actual source of income and I don't think that the wars you have declared currently increasing cost is an issue. The entire dec shield thing could be fixed entierly by removing the cost increase for the wars declared against the target, but this is a mechanic that clearly exists to protect people from being ganged up on, so I'd certainly think twice about removing it.

Internet space is complicated.

5e)


You realize that nullsec alliances are constantly wardecced...
so you can add/remove corps/members maybe twice per year if youre lucky.
what if i wanna kickout some spy?

Your main argument against the original fees I'd outlined were to allow new low SP players to still participate in declaring wars.

New, low SP players can't afford to set up alliances for 1B ISK ... and if they can, then the other fees are of no consequence. They obviously have the ISK.

As well, to set up an alliance requires a substantial amount of SP to be trained. Not a lot of players are going to waste their time doing that. But if they do, more power to them.

Concerning your objections.

#4. It's not forcing people to do anything in lowsec, other than cross it, if they wish. Moating up the racial regions simply creates stronger and more varied regional markets, since most people would not trade across the lowsec boundaries (fear!), whereas the intrepid would find those market differences to be profitable, thus they would take the risk for the reward. EVE is, after all, a risk vs. reward game (or at least it was.)

#5. There is that possibility. Dynamic play is great. Check the system security level before undocking. But as I outlined, busy systems would be far harder (near impossible?) to affect. Park your carrier in Rancer or Amamake. Those systems would likely never move to a temporary highsec standing.

#7. It is just an idea I listed. I don't actually like this idea all that much. I don't think Level 4 missions are a problem. Highsec incursions are more of a problem.

#11. Just an idea. This one I'd be curious to see what happened if it was implemented. We'd probably see hubs gravitate to 0.5 systems (like Hek.)

#13. There is nothing to do in the newbie sub-regions except the tutorial missions. There would be no mining belts. No market hub. Only frigates and destroyers, since those are the ships the tutorial missions give to characters. Any mining a character might do would be mission-related, to teach them the concept. Mining some mission mineral. If a character hit 1M SP, they'd be ejected out to Empire Space. The only people that might keep untrained newbs in the area would be for the lowsec PvP. But since they are low-skilled, they are on a level-playing-field with the real newbs ... thus they would actually be there to "teach" them about the harsher realities of the game. So, your argument about player staying there for months, is silly. The area is a slight shadow of the rest of the game. Other than some newbie PvP, there's no point at all in staying in the newb sub-regions longterm.

#16. Yes. I think folks in highsec make far too much money for next to no risk. Highsec incursions are ridiculously lucrative for the amount of risk (next to none.)

#17. Folks in highsec make too much money for zero risk.

#18 might be going to far, given #16 and #17. But like I said, not all the ideas make sense given some of the other ideas. If #16 and #17 were implemented, then #18 is not necessary.

Your #19 and #20, should be #20 and #21. I don't see a problem with either. #21 doesn't limit folks from making money, it just forces people to move around a little. Spreads people out more, so they aren't all clumped in the same six systems. As for stealth bomber bombs ... they should be allowed. Smart bombs are more powerful, singly, than a single scorch bomb, yet smart bombs are allowed.

Ah, ok, didnt read all of it.
So basicly you wanna force miners to not undock for a week, before they can corp hop ?

I put my vote in for removing insurance payout for concord victims. It only makes sense if you go against empire rules to be outcasted as an outlaw and not recieve the empire benefits. In actuall life, if an insuranse company could get away with not paying you, then they would do so (you cant go kill someone then claim the life insuranse on them if your convicted of murdering them).

I leave the rest of the discussion to the everyone else...

The 10-man mining corp will either end the war after two days by paying the equivalent fee. Or nine members will leave the corp for an NPC corp for the duration of the war.

Are people not allowed to wardec mining corps? That's ridiculous, if that's what you're arguing.

Then those people should probably be playing another game. This is a PvP game. Every non-PvP activity in this game is there to support and drive PvP.

If someone really hates PvP, then they shouldn't open themselves up to it. They should stay in an NPC corp and limit their exposure to it as much as possible.