Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Bounty changes:

Any time an corp/alliance declares war on another corp/alliance, the cost of that wardec is placed as a bounty on the deccing corp/alliance with a limit of 10 bil.

the primary benefit of this change is to encourage decs for all entities. by adding the ability for all wardec costs to be at minimum made back should the deccing corp kill enough isk during the war. This will take away much of the necessity for other players to pay for content through contracts. Also, the current need for large alliances with the ability to pay the upfront dec costs is lessened.

The hard cap of 10 bil isk is to dissuade dog piling on the corp with the highest bounty while still giving a large potential return on successful wars. The upper limit also means that at it would take 400 minimum cost deccs to reach the cap or 20 maximum cost deccs. This will mean large wardec alliances will have to risk the attention of the entire wardec community if they choose to dec corps/alliances much smaller than themselves as their bounty will go up much faster.

Since the cost of the dec is added as a bounty to the deccing corp, the entities with the highest bounties will inevitably be wardec corps. meaning that the juiciest targets will be other wardeccers rather than corps that lose the most ships. This removes what some see as the griefing mechanic of the current system where corps that lose ships are decced by every wardec corp looking to get in on good kills. while this system disincentivizes deccing weak or “bad” corps/alliances it does not remove it as an option. also, it will mean that a corp that chooses to do this can still do so even better than before as they will always be able to make the dec cost back at minimum.

Another complaint from the carebears is that the wardec players that currently participate use extremely blingy ships along with neutral logi, links, and eyes that give them an extremely unbalanced advantage against their opponents. Given that wardec corps will quickly acquire bounties, any corp or alliances that is being harassed by bling wielding wardeccers will have an incentive to fight back in the form of monetary gain. While I understand that this will not be enough of an incentive for many highsec corps to fight back, I don’t think they should be given any special treatment for essentially being unwilling combatants and i think i can say that the majority of “bad” highsec corps that don’t participate in PVP don’t participate because they absolutely don’t want to rather than because of some skewed reward mechanic. If baiting and blobbing a blinged out ship for not only a high bounty payout but for the chance to “win” the war and have some fun is not enough of an incentive than i doubt anything will shake that mindset. At the very least, this change will put more eyes on the wardeccers with large bounties so the highsec corps and alliances will be more likely to go unnoticed.

Since this system will bring attention to the bounty system, players looking to pay for wardec services can simply place a bounty on the corp they wish to have decced. Wardeccers constantly looking for juicy targets will see an corp that is not another wardec corp with a bounty they can extract. All they need to do is put up the initial wardec cost and they can potentially make back more than they paid in without having to be paid by other players directly through negotiations.

Before anything, they need to consider grief deccing a bannable offense.

There is no such thing, docking is not an exploit, and shut up, Basil.

It literally is not. You know how I know that? Because CCP has a very specific list of what is or is not an exploit on this very website.

And wardecs are never griefing, ever. There are no circumstances in which it is. Evading Basil Pupkin's forum ban with this alt of yours, on the other hand, likely is a violation of the rules.

Then stfu about dodging being an exploit and go be butthurt somewhere else.


I'd ask for arguments, but you'll typically answer "because the bladder content has hit my intracranial cabbage and it turned out that way".

Persistently chasing someone for whatever reasons (like "roleplay") is an official CCP griefing and that is what essentially a grief dec is. I dare you to say otherwise.

Wardeccing can stay, it's grief deccing what I'm against here.

Doubt away - any better evidence just doesn't exist.
Wardeccing can stay, it's grief deccing what I'm against here.
Unfortunately the last example of proper war dec got owned by associating itself with mittens... so whatever.


Oh I bet your kind finds this failure to debate irresistably witty.

which is that you're a forum alt or a lying carebear.