These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

SUGGESTION: War Declaration Minimum Corp Member Requirement

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Haulie Berry
#21 - 2013-04-02 16:20:18 UTC
Ceseuron wrote:
Some of these vitriolic responses are rather amusing, but the point of the original post was to suggest a way to make wars more meaningful, not to abolish them.



Yes, we are all buying this extremely transparent attempt to lend credibility to your whine-thread. It's not that you want your personal problem addressed - it's for the good of the game!
Milan Nantucket
Doomheim
#22 - 2013-04-02 19:53:25 UTC
Honestly... war dec costs should go up by a lot... 50 mil for a normal high sec corp... 200 or so mil for an alliance with 3-400 people...

Lets see that equals about 2-3 hours in some wormhole somewhere.
Bad Messenger
Rehabilitation Clinic
#23 - 2013-04-04 10:21:22 UTC
Milan Nantucket wrote:
Honestly... war dec costs should go up by a lot... 50 mil for a normal high sec corp... 200 or so mil for an alliance with 3-400 people...

Lets see that equals about 2-3 hours in some wormhole somewhere.


well thing is little bit complicated. Too high wardec fee removes possibility to do player action based counter actions.

One example is that Goons are not wardeced anymore 24/7 so they can camp highsec gates and suicide gank freely, you can almost think that CONCORD protects them by asking high wardec fee.

my opinion is that all limitations should be removed from wardecs and make those affordable to all. If those big 0.0 alliances are so good i bet they can handle little 1 man corp wardecs like they have done in the past.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#24 - 2013-04-04 11:07:48 UTC
Ceseuron wrote:
Before I begin, let me start by saying that I am not a carebear. I enjoy a good fight, and I have no problem losing ships, pods, implants, and whatever else goes along with it. I enjoy high sec wars, low sec fights, nullsec roams...the works.

That being said, I think there needs to be some changes on how war declarations get handled vis a vis the ridiculous 2 and 3 man corporations running around and bulk war deccing a half a dozen corporations at a time. The end result is one or two players doing little more than being a nuisance. I mean, I know we're all on the Internet here, but is it really necessary to enable people to go out of their way to prove John Gabriel's "Greater Internet @$#!-wad Theory" correct on a regular basis? I think not...

I propose that a minimum ACTIVE member count requirement (e.g. must have logged in within the past X days) be imposed on any corporation wishing to declare war on another. Set it to some reasonable number, like 10+, or even base it on some reasonable fraction (or whole) of the target corporation. Do something to make wars meaningful again, basically.

Again, I should reiterate that I am not suggesting we abandon war declarations entirely. I would just rather see them taken more seriously than they currently are. Every time I've gone hunting for war targets in these ridiculous 2 man griefer corporations, 9 times out of 10, they tuck tail and run as fast as they can as soon as someone willing to take them up on their war shows up. The last good engagement I had involved me losing a Hyperion of an expensive sort, but the six man corporation we were fighting was an honorable group, and it was...FUN.


Summary: Carebears are bloody cowards, and need mechanical restrictions to deal with 1 man war decs, because a god damned 40 man corp of carebears apparently are no match for a single other character

No. War decs have been nerfed time and time again, crying for more nerfs to benefit the defender is disgusting. If anything, we need to make war decs more attractive (to both sides) and easier to get rolling
Kristoffon Ellecon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2013-04-04 16:59:37 UTC
Ceseuron wrote:

Kristoffon Ellecon wrote:
GOOD NEWS EVERYONE

Your scrubby corporation has qualified for a free wardec from Kris' Karebear Killing Korp.

See you soon! o7


Roll I'm trembling in my space boots....


Easy to say that when you never log in.
Milan Nantucket
Doomheim
#26 - 2013-04-04 17:01:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Milan Nantucket
There already is a minimum. its 1

and gunslinger... I have seen some of these mass war deccers dock up when the "carebear" corp shows a force.... so cowardice works both ways.

Only good thing about these is it gets rid of crappy corps and alliances
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#27 - 2013-04-04 18:10:29 UTC
OP: Could you please do my survey on high-sec aggression? I'm interested in the whole debacle about who should be allowed to kill whom in high-sec.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=222235
(do the google doc questionnaire... unless you want to write me an essay.)

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Cynthia Nezmor
Nezmor's Golden Griffins
#28 - 2013-04-06 09:59:26 UTC
Ceseuron wrote:

I propose that a minimum ACTIVE member count requirement (e.g. must have logged in within the past X days) be imposed on any corporation wishing to declare war on another. Set it to some reasonable number, like 10+, or even base it on some reasonable fraction (or whole) of the target corporation. Do something to make wars meaningful again, basically.



So I only need 4 of my accounts to pretend I have a true corporation, and to ensure you that I too play this game as a substitue for real social life?
ISD LackOfFaith
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#29 - 2013-04-06 21:26:58 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD LackOfFaith
Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

12. Spamming is prohibited.

Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. This can include the words “first”, “go back to [insert other game name]” and other such posts that contribute no value to forum discussion. Spamming also includes the posting of ASCII art within a forum post.

22. Post constructively.

Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.


Thread cleaned up according to the above rules. It has also been moved to Features & Ideas Discussion. Please stay on topic, polite, and constructive.

ISD LackOfFaith

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to Eve Mail or anything other than the forums.
Ceseuron
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2013-04-07 06:40:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Ceseuron
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Summary: Carebears are bloody cowards, and need mechanical restrictions to deal with 1 man war decs, because a god damned 40 man corp of carebears apparently are no match for a single other character

No. War decs have been nerfed time and time again, crying for more nerfs to benefit the defender is disgusting. If anything, we need to make war decs more attractive (to both sides) and easier to get rolling


A fact that I actually agree with. I'm just saying we should have wars actually do something. Give them some meaning, some sort of reward. Make them useful tools. So expand on what you wrote. Ideas? Thoughts?

Kristoffon Ellecon wrote:


Easy to say that when you never log in.


This may come as a surprise, so you might want to be sitting down for this. See, there's this thing I have called a job. Takes place in real life, no less! And, given the fact that at said job we're in the middle of a massive project involving relocation of a few hundred servers on a live network at a datacenter, said job hasn't left much in the way of free time to log into EVE long enough to do much other than arrange some skill training and moving a few ships.

As much fun as EVE is, CCP doesn't pay enough of a salary to substitute my job with EVE. Combine that with the rather perfect weather I have right now, any free time I do manage to get is much better spent carving the roads up from the back of my motorcycle, not shuttering myself indoors to participate in your little nuisance war. I'll let you know when you become enough of a priority to change my current schedule, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that happening anytime in the near future if I were you.
Iagus Damaclese
Doomheim
#31 - 2013-04-07 07:23:35 UTC
Ceseuron wrote:
Before I begin, let me start by saying that I am not a carebear. I enjoy a good fight, and I have no problem losing ships, pods, implants, and whatever else goes along with it. I enjoy high sec wars, low sec fights, nullsec roams...the works.

That being said, I think there needs to be some changes on how war declarations get handled vis a vis the ridiculous 2 and 3 man corporations running around and bulk war deccing a half a dozen corporations at a time. The end result is one or two players doing little more than being a nuisance. I mean, I know we're all on the Internet here, but is it really necessary to enable people to go out of their way to prove John Gabriel's "Greater Internet @$#!-wad Theory" correct on a regular basis? I think not...

I propose that a minimum ACTIVE member count requirement (e.g. must have logged in within the past X days) be imposed on any corporation wishing to declare war on another. Set it to some reasonable number, like 10+, or even base it on some reasonable fraction (or whole) of the target corporation. Do something to make wars meaningful again, basically.

Again, I should reiterate that I am not suggesting we abandon war declarations entirely. I would just rather see them taken more seriously than they currently are. Every time I've gone hunting for war targets in these ridiculous 2 man griefer corporations, 9 times out of 10, they tuck tail and run as fast as they can as soon as someone willing to take them up on their war shows up. The last good engagement I had involved me losing a Hyperion of an expensive sort, but the six man corporation we were fighting was an honorable group, and it was...FUN.


I think I understand what you are saying, one of the things I have always felt when it comes to wardecs is that there is no real reason for anyone on either side to fight to unless they are in it for the killboards and the fun of the fight. Something I have often said myself is that there should be some real reward to winning a war and real risk to losing it, as wardecs just are not taken seriously enough as it is. Whether it is mining rights to a system, tribute from the loser to the winner in the form of minerals or ISK, or some other form of punishment or reward for the win/lose of a war. If you you could some how apply the risk vs reward system to the wardecs not only would the highsec indy corps feel compelled to fight but the one and two man corps would also be forced to think twice about declaring war on a 40 man indy corp because it would not matter if it is 40 vs 2. What talks would be the war report and the war would be decided according to both kills and ISK.

So lets say a 2 man nuisance corp goes up against a 40 man indy corp. Before the war gets declared the aggresor states what they want when they attain victory, then the defender would respond with what they want. 24 hours later the war goes live, if absolutely no kills are made then each corp would be forced to pay 100 million ISK CONCORD, or something to that equivalent. If both sides make kills and by some stroke of a miracle manage to end the war in a draw, then corp/alliance leaders will duel required to duel in order to make the decision and their respective corps/alliances will be forced to pay a fee for every 24 hour period the war stands at a draw past the ending date until the duel takes place, or something to that equivalent.

Here are some of the options that I would suggest for the risk vs reward system

1) Mining rights to a system - Winning corp gets mining rights to the system and is free to share them with whomever, the losing corp is forced to either leave the system or get red flagged to the winning corp upon entering the system in question at anytime within the week following the wars end. So it would be temporary mining rights not exclusive.

2)Tribute - The losing corp would be forced to pay a set amount of ISK, prescribed by the winning corp before the war went live, this of course may actually take the losing corps wallet down to absolute zero, but not to the negatives. Needs to be a bit of an ISK sink not a faucet.

3)Economical favor - The winning corp pays 5% less in station taxes whilst the losing corp pays 5% more in station tax for a period of one week following the end of the war.

4) Political Favor - The winning corp gets a 1.0 increase in empire standing of a single chosen empire whilst the losing corp gets a 1.0 decrease in empire standing with an empire of the winning corps choosing. Meaning that the winning corp would get a sec standing increase that would benefit them and the loser would get a decrease that would not be good for them.

These are just a few of the ideas I have had, if anyone has any other ideas please share them.
Sivren Ravenwood
Ravenwood Defense Industries
#32 - 2013-04-07 12:34:56 UTC
I like the idea of making the corp doing the wardec larger. Right now my allaince has been at war for about 3 weeks and only one of the guys has been online the past few days but the first 2 week on one in that corp logged on. But it gets boring chasing one guy from system to system. So yeah make it where corps have to have atleast 10 players or something like that. And befor you all start whining I am a carebear I am not I know how to pvp I enjoy pvp just dont like chasing people.
Kristoffon Ellecon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2013-04-07 14:41:30 UTC
Sivren Ravenwood wrote:
I like the idea of making the corp doing the wardec larger. Right now my allaince has been at war for about 3 weeks and only one of the guys has been online the past few days but the first 2 week on one in that corp logged on. But it gets boring chasing one guy from system to system. So yeah make it where corps have to have atleast 10 players or something like that. And befor you all start whining I am a carebear I am not I know how to pvp I enjoy pvp just dont like chasing people.

So you're complaining that the corp that wardecced you isn't hunting you down?

I can help with that.
Sivren Ravenwood
Ravenwood Defense Industries
#34 - 2013-04-07 15:55:31 UTC
Kristoffon Ellecon wrote:
Sivren Ravenwood wrote:
I like the idea of making the corp doing the wardec larger. Right now my allaince has been at war for about 3 weeks and only one of the guys has been online the past few days but the first 2 week on one in that corp logged on. But it gets boring chasing one guy from system to system. So yeah make it where corps have to have atleast 10 players or something like that. And befor you all start whining I am a carebear I am not I know how to pvp I enjoy pvp just dont like chasing people.

So you're complaining that the corp that wardecced you isn't hunting you down?

I can help with that.


I dont see how you are helping seems more like trolling
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#35 - 2013-04-07 18:10:18 UTC
What if there were 2 types of wars which you can choose from? One which is much like the current one where offender needs to bribe concord in order to declare war which the defender can't deny. It should have the current costs modified, only large alliances seems to benefit of the current one but i won't go into that...

Second one would be war offers, where the offender and the target corp both agree to pay let's say 100m. Then after the war winner gets 90% of the 200m and rest goes to concord as bribe for them. So to the guys who says they just want to have fun wouldn't this be the ideal choice for you? You not only get motivated opponents to fight but even have reward as goal.
Elvis Preslie
NRDS Securities
Apocalypse Now.
#36 - 2013-04-07 21:07:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Elvis Preslie
The only problems I see with war decs are the ability for corps to BAIL on the war dec, not pay the fees, and keep war decing.

There is suppose to a "minimum requirement" so to speak but it is based on members to ISK.

Mercenaries war dec other corps/alliances with no intention of paying the war fees, to have concord invalidate the war. Then, they war dec again with another corp they freshly made, having all members move to that one.

The only way to fix the system without imposing new regulations is to make it where one corporation cannot declare war on the same corporation/alliance more than one time within a thirty day period or so. This would cause someone that war decs another corp/alliance to HAVE to pay the war fees, to EXTEND the war dec.

The war fees either need to be PAID UP FRONT, to make people debate on whether to keep a character active or pay for a war, or, in case they want to exploit the game and move corps with the same characters, MAKE the ceo stay in the corp with a war bill owed UNTIL they pay the bill.

keep ANY of the members that have been in two corps that bail on war decs from joining another corp, other than NPC, until THEY pay their share of the war fee. This will encourage membership to honest corps, like myself. It will make members check on corps they join more thoroughly before doing so.

Also, CHARGE INTEREST for unpaid bills, making them think twice about bailing on a war bill.

If the defender decides to join in the war, reimburse the aggressor for the fees. Whatever you decide to do, ccp, DONT decide to do nothing.

We could also make the stasis period NOT static; make the stasis be based on how much time you spent in that corp. For me @ 1 year 6 months, I would expect to take over a week to leave this corp. however it should be based on how long you kept roles in the corp, not simply how long you was in it.
Kristoffon Ellecon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2013-04-08 02:28:26 UTC
Sivren Ravenwood wrote:

I dont see how you are helping seems more like trolling

I'll help with your boredom problem. I'll be doing the hunting though.

Elvis Preslie wrote:
The war fees either need to be PAID UP FRONT, to make people debate on whether to keep a character active or pay for a war, or, in case they want to exploit the game and move corps with the same characters, MAKE the ceo stay in the corp with a war bill owed UNTIL they pay the bill.


Everything would be so much better if people didn't pount their keyboards about crap they don't know anything about. You see, that is exactly what happens. Fees *are* paid up front.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#38 - 2013-04-08 04:09:05 UTC
If 1-3 dudes being able to shoot you shuts down your entire alliance it seem to me that there might be something wrong with your alliance.
Sivren Ravenwood
Ravenwood Defense Industries
#39 - 2013-04-08 18:41:23 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
If 1-3 dudes being able to shoot you shuts down your entire alliance it seem to me that there might be something wrong with your alliance.


True
Draco Zhuangli
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2013-04-08 22:06:28 UTC
I agree with the OP, that something needs to be done about the War Declaration system.

Quote:
I propose that a minimum ACTIVE member count requirement (e.g. must have logged in within the past X days) be imposed on any corporation wishing to declare war on another. Set it to some reasonable number, like 10+, or even base it on some reasonable fraction (or whole) of the target corporation. Do something to make wars meaningful again, basically.


I personally think that a reasonable fraction of the target corp/alliance is the way to go.

I am no stranger to Wars, as my Alliance seems to be in them constantly. Here is what happens when A small corp. declares war on a large alliance:

Yes we all make watchlists and switch into our pvp ships. The war targets never show up. They sneak and hide around and log out at an asteroid field. They pop on (since they are in a spy alt and watching) when someone goes out to...you know, play the game, and mine. Even though that miner has a watchlist, stays aligned, takes all the precautions, the quick log in can easily surprise for a quick and easy kill.
If the war dec party is brave enough to come out and fight, we will give them a fight. But they never want a fight. All they want is to pick off the easy kills.

So what does this do to the alliance? First week of war no problem. Second week of war, getting boring.
Some pilots have given up some easy kills, the others get mad at them, so they end up staying docked. The pvpers are out and ready to fight. Third week of war getting tiresome. The war dec party continues to sneak around, grief, and play station games. They hardly ever come out for a fair fight. Fourth week of war pilots and corps start to bail so they can at least go play the game. Yes the miners and the beginners will just stay docked up spinning their ships. The Fifth week of war is ridiculous. We can't get a fight. The miners cant go and mine. The carebears cannot play their game. And the PVPers can't even find anything to shoot.

This has happened time after time, and is ALWAYS a small corp declaring war. Its never a REAL war. It is ALWAYS nothing more than a nuisance and griefing. Something needs to be done if CCP wants to have high/low sec Alliances. Otherwise the reaction is to split up into small corporations, because they hardly ever declare war against a small corporation. Its usually against a large industrial alliance.

If you try to respond like many have already with something silly like
Quote:
If 1-3 dudes being able to shoot you shuts down your entire alliance it seem to me that there might be something wrong with your alliance.


Thats what happens to any industrial alliances. The carebears get shutdown. The PVPers go to fight, but the "aggressors" tuck tail and go hide in a station until the PVPers all logout for the night . This is suppose to be a fun game for everyone. The current War Declaration System is doing nothing but causing grief.
Previous page12