Crime & Punishment

Large mercenary alliances would frankly devolve into hard core trade hub campers if faced with a hard cap on wars. Previously when cost multipliers were a thing declaring more than 15 wars was pretty expensive (though current mercenary alliances tend to be larger and betternfunded) so the large groups just focused on declaring war on lots of big null entities and blowing up stuff on the 4-4 undock because thats what gets you the most bang for your buck.

A hard cap is reasonable if it's applied to corporations only like it used to be and is offset by something like a decreased cost per war (again like it used to be). When this was the case in the past it served as an incentive for war declaring corps to not be part of an alliance while also limiting their ability to provide content to a large membership. Decreased cost for corporations to declare war would also lower the bar for entry into highsec pvp.

Also special consideration has to be given to wars that result from a corps dropping out of an alliance, alliances failscading often creates large numbers of wars and having the game punish you for your enemy collapsing by locking out your war slots would be pretty ******* annoying.

We had large highsec merc entities when cost multipliers made declaring war on large numbers of different groups. The main difference was that nearly all of their discretionary wars were against the largest most freighter-rich entities they could find.

So long as there's a large financial burden on an alliance declaring wars it's going to be beneficial to group up into large groups. Right now there's basically no value to being in a small group versus a large one right now. You have to shoulder the same kind of financial burden as the large group, with fewer people and a larger group can dunk on you at will at no expense to themselves via the ally system.

In any situation where both corps and alliances share the exact same limitations alliances are going to win out. Trying to force them to be smaller via a cap on the quantity of wars without any actual incentives whatsoever to actually be smaller is not going to have the desired effect, it'll just make them go back to declaring war on Ivy League.

I support the idea of hard cap of 10 or a serious scaling method like vimsy said IF and only IF there was instead a serious conflit driver added to highsec. And I do mean Serious. POS/POCO/Citadel Cities that you can't even lose assets from unlike a POS (WTF CCP???) are not content drivers on any meaningful scale. It would need to be a limited resource that could not be controlled by one (or even a half dozen) entity/s efficiently. Without something promoting lots of smaller scale conflicts any change reducing wardecs is a bad thing imo.

Quoted for posterity that future generations may find this when I say it happened

From Leto's thread announcing my nomination:

Here are my thoughts:

I completely agree with your second two points in principle. Player corps need to be worth fighting for and NPC corps need to penalize players who live in them long term. Your particular mechanisms could do well and are similar to what I proposed.

I used to agree with the scaling wardec fees but every mechanism I either thought of or had shared with me had one thing in common: they encouraged larger and larger merc corps in order to be able to take more contracts to cover the larger wardec fees. I don't want a hisec with one or two massive merc corps wardeccing everyone under the sun, I want a multitude of smaller corps each competing with each other for who gets the best contracts. Competition drives conflict, but monopolies (even monopolies on war) kill competition.

If you don't like my method of limiting merc corp size (i.e. wardec caps), do you have another idea to help drive hisec war conflict? I'd genuinely like to know. I don't like caps and find them arbitrary and annoying, but in this case I think they may be necessary to prevent eventual merc monopolies.

Who am I? I'm the guy who sees blanket wardecs stifling new player corp creation. I'm the guy who wants to make player corps worth fighting for. I'm the guy who wants to drive competition between merc corps. Ultimately, I'm the guy who thinks that risk vs reward in hisec is broken and needs to be adjusted, and this platform is how I propose it be done. I don't want to nerf wardecs, if anything I want to make them more meaningful. You'd know that if you bothered to read my whole platform.

Since I'm the one proposing ideas and willing to listen to suggestions and you, well you just come off as butthurt, I'm going to call you the troll here. If you can't contribute constructively, GTFO of my thread and go camp a station or something.

Is this a bad thing? As it is, there's way too many corps being created by people who don't have the first clue about running an Eve corp, either because they assume it's just like running a guild in any other MMORPG, or some other reason.

Is it possible that a genuine newbie who has a bad experience in their first player-run corp will be less likely to bother trying again, and that the more unprepared CEOs that are put off creating a bad corp, the better?

I am willing to talk if you are willing to hear me out. If all I get is "wah wah this nerfs how I play the game" without any rational thought behind it then I will still listen but I will have a very hard time taking you seriously.

As far as I know, you still haven't read my platform past the 10 wardec limit. I would genuinely be interested in hearing your thoughts on the other parts of my proposal if you take the time to read them. I actually imagine that we would see eye to eye on some of my other points.

I am open to suggestions. I have goal in sight, and that goal is a state of hisec where risk and reward are more balanced*, not a specific list of changes. If we as a community can agree to an end state and come up with a different list of changes to accomplish it, I am 100% open to that.



*Yes, this includes making large merc corps harder to operate because, right now, they can effectively operate with comparatively little risk.

You still never responded to how all of your platform is pointless and a waste of time. There are a LOT of hisec residents that don't like wars at all and don't want to see any conflict drivers added. They want complete peace and your platform is completely one-sided in that fact. Your changes are only going to appeal to the small 0.01 percent of players within this forum, which is why this is a joke...

You need to get on board with fixing and polishing a lot more than making this game riskier if you want to be a true representative for hisec.

- What are your suggestions for making it WORTH joining and staying in a corp (even when it gets rough)?
- What do you think about corp and faction standings and should they be changed in any way?
- What do you think about the corporation UI and do you have any suggestions on how it can be less of a headache to manage?
- What do you think about (freighter) bumping?
- What do you think about hyperdunking?

I was actually going through some posts to date and your first one was coming up. I'll start with these though:

1. My proposal regarding "corp history" addresses this, although, admittedly, in a vague manner because I don't have a specific mechanism in mind. I want to change player corps such that, over time, they earn some kind of benefit and the longer they exist and the more active they are, the bigger that benefit. I would actually like to see hisec residents potentially be able to make more ISK than they do now, so long as they are willing to stick with a player corp for the long haul instead of dropping corp to dodge wardecs or living in NPC corps (i.e. increased risk/effort).

2. I think that the current mechanic of player corps gaining all of their external standings directly from their members limits the desire to keep a corp whole. Being able to form a new corp with the same players and have all of the standings transfer limits the desire to retain the corp and makes it feel "disposable". If corps themselves had separate standings that they earned that didn't transfer, it would motivate players to stay.

3. I think the corp UI can definitely use some work, but I have no specific suggestions. I'm a gamer, not a UI engineer.

4. Freighter bumping (and bumping in general), is a perfectly legal and legitimate form of gameplay, and one that can often be avoided if you take the proper precautions. I don't see the need for any changes here.

5. I'm on the fence on hyperdunking. It's legal (for now), and it does satisfy risk v reward criteria (the hyperdunnker is still losing X number of ships), but it feels somehow...off to me in a way I can't quantify. I am not opposed to it in it's current form, but I am willing to discuss possible changes if someone can provide concrete reasons as to why it's any worse than regular suicide ganking.


Gotta run to work. I'll address more posts later. Thanks for the feedback.