Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Current costs are way too little for the privilege of waging war against someone that doesn't want you attacking them in hi-sec. Even the 50M/week alliance base cost is chump change these days with Incursions letting hi-sec players make 50M/hour. Then there's the fake distinction between a corp and alliance (which was probably done because it was easy to code).

Wars need to get more expensive. Higher wardec costs will result in fewer, but higher quality wars. It won't be something that you do for the lulz because you were drunk and it only cost you a few million ISK. Instead, you're going to have to HTFU and decide whether you really want to spend that few hundred million ISK to go pick on Carebear #232 Corporation. If you're a merc corp, then pass that cost along to your clients, who can decide just how much they want to pay to ruin someone else's day. Pirate corps will have to be more discriminating in which corps/alliances they target and will have to resort to suicide ganks for the rest.

The base cost for even a 1v1 war needs to be somewhere up around 200M ISK (about 1/2 of a PLEX). (If you want cheap wars, then convince the other side to make it mutual, otherwise HTFU.)

Scaling needs to be added instead of relying on corp/alliance flag. It needs to include the total number of pilots that will be involved, maybe scaling as a sqrt() of the total number of pilots on both sides of the wardec. Scaling by pilots would eliminate entirely the need to base costs off of whether the target is an alliance or a corporation.

The primary exploit with pilot tracking is when the aggressor tries to game the system in order to reduce the fee that they have to pay for the total number of pilots involved (the defender generally won't resort to these tricks). This will probably be done by having a 1-person alliance which wardec's the target, then a few corps with the real members (dozens/hundreds) will be accepted into the alliance. So instead of the aggressor paying the full scaling fee, they get the war on the cheap.

Possible solution to that would be that aggressor alliances who have wardec'd other parties cannot accept new corporations into the alliance until all outbound wardecs are cancelled. Corporations with active outbound wardecs should not be allowed to join alliances (the corp should have to drop the wardec, join alliance, re-declare after the 24h cooldown). Alternately, in order for a corporation to join an aggressor alliance, they should have to match the outbound wardecs before joining (so if the alliance has wardecs against A B & C, the corporation will have to also wardec A B & C before joining). Another possible solution would be that in order for the corp to join the alliance, they must pay the fee differential plus a 25M handling fee.

A secondary exploit could by done by the defender corporation who create a lot of trial accounts, and then have them join the corporation/alliance to drive up membership numbers. The answer to this is that only pilots who are on actively paid accounts (not trial, not lapsed) should count.

Whichever way the scaling fee is calculated, it must also have an upper-bound so that once you get up above about 2500 pilots in the corp/alliance, the scaling no longer applies. If the fee is calculated as 10 * Sqrt(pilots), then that "pilots affected" fee would top out around 500M ISK for a really large alliance. For a smaller alliance of say 100 pilots, the scaling portion of the fee would be 100M.

In order to stop the issue where 1 alliance decides to wardec all of EVE every outbound wardec that you have should increase the base fee by 20% per active wardec in an exponential growth fashion. So the base fee for war #1 would be 200M, then 240M for the 2nd war declared while the first is still active. Then 288M, 345M, 415M, 498M, 597M, 717M, etc.

Base Fee = (1.2 ^ (# of active non-mutual wardecs)) * 200M ISK
Scale = Sqrt(# of active paid pilots on both sides) * 10M ISK

Cheapest war (1v1) = 214M ISK
Small war (20v10) = 255M ISK
Modest sized war (20 v 200) = 348M ISK
Larger war (200 v 1000) = 546M ISK
Massive war (200 v 5000) = 700M ISK (note the 2500 pilot limit taking effect)

Solo alliances (100 pilots) vs (5) 100-pilot alliances =
200M + 141M for first war
240M + 141M for 2nd wardec
288M + 141M for 3rd
345M + 141M for 4th
415M + 141M for 5th
Total: 2193M ISK for the first week, going up to 2780M ISK for the 2nd week (since there would be 5 active wardecs when it comes time to renew).

For the Orphanage example of 20 wardecs, it would not be affordable if the base fee scales by (1.2^N). The upper limit would probably be around 10 wardecs (base fee for each wardec would be 1238M/week plus however many pilots are in each target's organization). So maybe CCP decides to scale it by 1.1 or 1.15 instead.

here's the point you miss. Wardecs are illegal. The only reason they are allowed in high sec is because concord has been bribed to look the other way for a bit. There is no reason that the bribe shouldn't be considerable.. as too much bribery will eventually come back to haunt concord - it behooves concord to be "careful".

To me it looked like you just are pining to have high sec changed to be more like low sec. and honestly I agree with those that think war decs are too cheap.

There is very easy solution to avoid war decs.
join NPC corp and you are safe forever, you pay 11% for it tho.
There is reason for this tax, its bout driving people of from this safe haven.
Can't anchor pos with NPCs tho, but if youre annoyed from war and wont undock for a week you would still prolly lose it ;)
If you wanna keep you're community together, you can form chat channel or something better.
just wanted to point one solution that people seems to forget...

We all understand that point very well.

Of course we all also understand that just because you can join an npc corp doesn't mean that the costs of war decs are fine and dandy.

If I must pay 11% tax in order to be safe from war decs, but nothing else, then why should it be so cheap to war dec?

You said it yourself.. You have to pay more to be safe from war decs.

This is a contradiction situation in that you're saying cheap war decs are fair and so is expensive safety from war decs.

Safety from war decs is expense, so war decs should be expensive as well.

[13] Wardecs can be paid for and started by third parties on two unsuspecting alliances or corps. Both sides receive a mail saying the other side started the war. Make this cost more than a standard wardec so you keep the ability for hiring and being scammed. Would need some changes to the way decs are displayed in game and might be unworkable but does provide for some entertaining options.

[[14] Skills. You could have many skills related to wardecs. War duration and costs, maximum number of wars allowed, and lowering the 24 hour warmup time. I dont like this idea as it seems overly complex to implement and only a few players will need them but it might warrant further discussion.

[x] Increase the NPC corp taxes by 1% per month of your characters age.

[y] If you are in a non starter player NPC corp (that is not a new player) then you dont get the protection of the Yulai Convention. No CONCORD security status penalty decrease for suicide ganking people in a non starter NPC corp.

Xhondo Dhoru, station games and neutral RR might need some work but are a different issue than wardecs. Make a thread about it and I will support it. No local is good as well as are the remove easy intel ideas posted in features and ideas.




Glad you posted this as I wanted to address this and I had forgot to do so.

I have always loved the idea that you are somehow bribing CONCORD. It is a classic myth in EVE.

The message from CONCORD should help you understand it better, "CONCORD has declared this war invalid as it breaches one or more articles in the Yulai Convention". You dont bribe concord to allow you to fight an illegal war but pay them to sanction you to fight a legal war under the terms of the Yulai Convention.

I would also point out that the Yulai Convention said wars cost a fixed 50 million and that CONCORD was wrong to introduce the Alliance P amendment. and I would push for its repeal.

I still refer to it as a bribe most of the time as well before someone points that out.




U still mad bro?

Make your own thread if you have anything important to say about wardecs but I dont expect you will.



No.

You pay 11% tax on taxable income simply for being in a NPC corp. One of the current benefits of being in a NPC corp is wardec immunity but the tax does not pay for this. I think it was last year that NPC corp taxes were introduced with the stated aim to move players out of NPC and into player corps. This plan has failed. See point [x] above for the solution.

I made the point that you should be able to dec people in non starter NPC corps as too many people have alts in NPC corps that do no taxable activities and dont even pay this 11%. You could add some form of ISK tax each week but I like the no penalty for suicide ganking option better.

As being in an NPC corp has the benefit of removing you from wardecs then a penalty seems appropriate. EVE is a game of choices and consequences after all. Point [y] above is an elegant solution.

I also like the idea of no insurance payments for people in non starter NPC corps so you can dec suicide gankers or they pay more for ganks by staying in a NPC corp. Again, choices and consequences.

So basically, you wanna take away the only point for being in an NPC corp..
Wow, you know what? That actually makes no sense at all.


So basically, you should be able to kill everyone even with suicide ganks for no penalty.
Do you re-read what you type before posting?

Everything about your posts screams "I wanna kill people in high sec because I like less risky pvp"



DUDE, 11% TAX IS A PENALTY....



WTF are you even trying to say here... This sentence made no sense.
I don't even know how to comment cause I don't even know wtf you said.

However, if you statement had anything to do with NPC corp pilots not getting paid insurance when they're killed. HELL NO!!
It's the suicide gankers that get popped by concord that shouldn't be getting insurance payouts.
you committed an illegal act, which makes insurance null and void in most worlds.

Again, choices and consequences.



Seriously dude, if you don't like the costs, concording, and war dec safe npc corps of high sec.
THEN PVP IN LOW SEC WHERE SOME RISKS ARE REQUIRED!!!!

Stop trying to pad your killmails with illagit kills

Popping a hulk = weak
Popping an transport = Gay
Popping a pve fitted ship = tool

It's really easy to pop ships in high sec where they're unprepared for pvp.

However, if you wanna get some thrills out of pvp, THEN GO TO LOW SEC.

Or are you too scared you might lose your pretty ship???

LOL, it's funny cause it's true..

Silly Pirates, D*cks are for chicks....

what is highsec + wardec? lowsec. why do "carebears" very seldom go to lowsec or even reject story line missions leading them to lowsec for a little courier? because they dont like the pvp part. they want to explore the universe or play together against the computer, no more.

ganking as it is, is very hard on many players (look at the tears in the ice fields...) because it disrupts the very part of the game that they like most. industrial players ferrying their goods across some ganker systems have enough trouble with that. they are happy with manufacturing and selling stuff and seeing their ship jump through eve universe and saying hello to fellow iteron pilots drinking coffee in their cockpit. no pvp wanted or needed.

CCP would be wise to keep those people happy. nobody gets hurt if you let them be. and if people "evolve" and find taste in pvp they can move on to spaces with lower security levels. and meet you to fight over stuff, e.g. a POS.

there is a considerable number of players who like the casual, afk-style of the game. spinning in space, going auto-pilot while taking a shower, crunshing the roids while watching TV, watching the traffic at a trade hub. being happy to hit a mission once in a while to make the universe a safer place. heard of chribba? and yes, why should you use capitals only for fighting?

it is just a shame that across all ships, EHP are soooo low compared the dps that they can do, ships should survive much longer... the fact that pve and pvp fits actually differ is a BIG problem, and it makes no sense. but this is another topic, it would need changes how pve content works or a complete rebalancing. but that it is so easy to gank a pve BS is imho just bad design.

ok, you need a wardec to shoot a POS in highsec, agreed, that should be possible somehow. if you build a POS you commit to something. but there should even be some form of highsec like a "demilitarized zone" where non-censensual pvp is forbidden and "chicken players" can fully enjoy doing whatever low-risk low-reward activities they want to pursue. so lets make high-security highsec POS-free and forbid non-censensual pvp, allow POS in low-security highsec and thats your new playground then.

when those casual carebear highsec players face wardec they live with it for 1 week, then the start to login only once in a while to see whats new, if the wardec has ended. finally they leave the corp or play WoW, because there they do not get limited by other players in doing what they want to do.

eve is all about pvp? well, that is for CCP to decide. i hope not, because many people dont like it. give everyone a space in eve to be happy and do what they want.

---

didnt take me long, here is exactly one of those players - they are as much worth as you are.

The vast majority of people posting here have disagreed with you quite hard.

Yet, you can't seem to get over it and think that we're all idiots making terrible comments.

Maybe you should read back through the posts and see what everyone is saying again.

P.S.

U mad Bro?

If the pvp-bears really want to increase pvp, it would be great that anybody could attack them once they wardec. Hundreds of non-consensual targets!

I would even go to high-safe to hunt them as there are so few targets in null.