Crime & Punishment

Yep this was my solution to this issue.

The reason I didn't advocate localized (single-region) wars as an option in my CSM run was out of fear that we would get them - at the expense of losing global wars.

Bronson, your suggestion of unilateral surrender options being written into stone in the original wardec is a good one, although the aggressor should be able to compromise after the fact. (For instance, the aggressor might say "Pay us 1200m and we will restrict this dec just to Sinq Laison", but then if the defender offers 750m for a total revocation of the war, the aggressor should be able to accept that weaker surrender offer if they desire.)

Hmm, I'm not sure I understand the main goal of this thread.
Somewhat of a :
1/ Hey, we may get another C+P dude running for the CSM (people here mentioned the Bacon and Aleks, but our younger C+Pers should learn that Psychotic Monk, the Pirate King, almost made it. Oh, and don't forget Darius III was on the CSM, too). Hello there.
2/ Propositions, mostly about highsec mechanisms. It is a good idea for a CSM to present a bit his views of the game, but do not forget : a CSM member is not a game designer. Half of your job is giving CCP a first-hand feedback.
3/ But here I can read some interesting answers, which is the second part of a CSM : relaying the feedbacks of the players to CCP. I'm delighted to see proper, constructive arguments here. Kudos to everyone.

Honestly, while I support this kind of initiative and Bronson seems to be a nice guy, I must tell that I feel that CCP won't do any highsec balancing for a while (2 to 3 years). Just last month, I found yet another loophole in this mess (this time, a way to be sure that your titan BPO that is sitting in a lab, inside a RFed tower, cannot be looted by the opponents once the tower becomes vulnerable again ).

Yes, the CSM election isn't a plebiscite on game mechanics, much less a referendum on them.

However quite a number of game mechanics in today's game have come from CSM feedback.

Probably most significant in the last couple of years was Mynnna's campaign for specific strategies to revitalize nullsec industry, some of which made it into the game verbatim (replacing drone poo with ISK, removing non-drone tech 1 loot from rat wrecks) and others which influenced the design of Crius.

So long as the up-front unilateral surrender option is an addition to existing surrender mechanics instead of a replacement for them, they should be able to. Very good to clarify though.

(Apologies if this seems "steam of consciousness", I'm thinking out loud here and my brain is currently dealing with the double whammy of sinus pressure and allergy meds. Urk.)

Let me twist this a little bit with something simpler. As the members of a corp earn LP for a corp/faction, the corp starts to gain a modifier that applies to LP/ISK rewards that corp/faction. The longer you're in the corp and gaining LP, the more LP corp members earn. However, if you leave the corp, that modifier doesn't come with you, and if the corp disbands the modifier goes away with the corp.

The problem with this is that one of my goals is to make it harder to earn ISK in hisec, not easier. If we just did this without adjusting anything else, more ISK and LP would be generated, not less.


Maybe instead of penalizing NPC corps directly, we nerf mission rewards across the board (say, X%, it doesn't have to be much) and then apply the modifier to player corps so that when the modifier is maxed it adds slightly more than X%. So if you stayed in your player corp long enough you could potentially earn more than you do now, but you'd have to work for it and stay vulnerable to wardecs. If you stay in an NPC corp or disband/reform your corp, you would earn less than you do now.

This would really only incentivize mission-running and FW player corps, but I think it would work with them. Maybe we could come up with similar modifiers for other corp activities? Want max ore refines? Do lots of refining in a player corp and you can get slightly higher than you can now. Want cheaper job costs? Install lots of jobs in a corp and they can get slightly cheaper than they are now. Trade costs? Contract fees? Heck, maybe even have a modifier for wardec fees so that the longer a merc corp exists and the more wars it fights, the lower its wardec fees get. (Folks here will love that one.)

Basically...have the corp be rewarded for corp member activity, but that reward stays only with the corp. As a corp matures over time and gains various modifiers, it could be a draw for new members...and a target on their back.

Forcing a corp to fold would actually mean something now.

Risk vs reward.

Wardecs aren't bullying.

Perhaps not to you, but that's really for the ones receiving them to say. BAW wardeccing another merc corp is not bullying. A experienced merc corp deccing every small newbro/mining/pve corp on the other hand...

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think what you guys are doing is great, and creates content and a general spiff of life in high sec. But all of the problems you guys are discussing on this forum, seem to result from many small, pvp-weak corps feeling "bullied" by endless war decs they have little chance to fight successfully. Thus, they avoid them. Making them harder to avoid will make them hate pvp combat even more, which is counter to what you guys seem to be attempting to do.

... is not bullying. People need to grow a spine if they feel bullied by people using the mechanics of an internet game about asploding virtual spaceships against them.

Actual, honest-to-Bob, bullying is serious. It's also far less of a problem in the virtual world because of killfiles, or whatever the media buzzword for them is these days. You right click on the asshat and you click block.

A newbro corp shouldn't exist unless it's got competent leadership that not only has a passion for herding cats, but also for teaching and they need to know the facts from the myths from the malicious lies. We need to better educate new players that them starting a corp is, in most cases, a terrible idea.

Or leave the barrier where it is and make a graphic example out of some of these corps from time to time? I dunno. Sometimes I think we should just have a CTA across the whole of the New Order, and invite all our "sociopath" friends, and camp out the newbie help channel for an entire month, verbally ganking anyone who gives bad / wrong advice. We could even hunt the offenders down in space, too.