EVE General Discussion

yup, often enough.
often they'd be happy without competition for a week or two, sometimes they would want damage done.
sometimes they'd want them to fold,
we were often used as leverage for industrial players.
we've done protection contracts ,
which for us wasn't babysitting, rather slapping the aggressor about till they stopped logging in.
we've been kept on retainer for months and months at a time.

we stopped soliciting business for about 6 months, but were back now.

LMAO. This is on the edge of troll. It is. If you have fair weather subordinates and they ditch at the first sign of trouble, shouldn't you go back over your corporation and find ways to make it better to not leave? No? Lets come up with changes to force people to stay in or else they get to carry the wardec??? The way some MF'ers think in this game, I swear. NO corporation is 'family', as you put it. The grass is ALWAYS greener somewhere else. If you get wardec'd and the OPFOR appears to be stronger, then, your green lawn just got covered in nasty sht that you have to step though. Might be better to leave said lawn behind, get it?

So how can we come up with ways to make corporations suck less (not saying yours, but in general) so people feel they have options if they stay in, instead of ball and chain mechanics. Dock up and cancel EVE sub will break any wardec, but how do we change that to something that's not complete B/S (re: see OP).

- Individual opt out option?
- Only flashing red while in "X" class ship, that is predetermined by each corporation member?
- Individual member payment in isk to concord to shut off the pvp flag?
- A combination of the three above?

That's all I've got but, yeah, way better than your suggestions.

Actually... I think the way to get more activity in war decs is to make it more necessary to have assets in space that can be attacked. For example,what if we had boosting structures that could do one of the following:

Boost mission LP payout
Increase mining speed
Reduced system cost index

These structures can only be anchored by a Corp that is older than a week. Once anchored, they cannot be unanchored easily or maybe at all. Allow them to be varying size with reward increased by size, but so would cost. Allow for defenses Based on size. Additionally, enable the defenses to function as force multipliers such as logi or ewar. Have these structures follow maybe a citadel bdefense line where X+1 helps to control grid but is not the only answer. Also they should be killable in under a week. And their boosting only applies to the corp/alliance when in that system. In the case of l.p. payout, you would anchor in the system with the mission agent to get the bonus.

Now you may have to nerf normal bounties and such to balance. Still, this would encourage people to group together to anchor and use the structures. Perhaps even limit quantity on each system to generate conflict over who gets what space. Mercs could then dec the structure owners. The owners could still drop Corp as individuals but the structure will be lost if not defended. On the other hand, the owners could higher defenders and between the defenders and the structure, put up a good fight with a smaller group.

This would hopefully create conflict over the structures. NPC people could not use them so would face one more reason to move to a player Corp. Mercs have a real target to attack even if the enemy turtles up the entire war dec. Plus you get a risk verse reward system that people may enjoy.

This at least would be a way to create conflict, add incentive to leave NPC corps, but not put out those who wish to make a Corp and not have assets in space by too much.

Couple that with changing locator agents to state if a target is active(online) or not and limit maximum number of War decs to 3+3 per level of a CEO skill (max 18 which would be based on alliance level if in an alliance or Corp level if not in an alliance) and you may have something.

Bob almighty, this thread is as much a joke as the useless wardec townhall a couple months back.


You posted a link to a killboard in which your alliance has gotten 7 bil in kills (and no losses) by camping trade hub undocks and pipe gates using, primarily, T3C's, and always against solo targets while using numerous people (on all but the three smallest kills). I'm assuming you meant to post something else, considering you talked about it as if your group were hurt by the war?

Ah, I see that now, glancing at their killboard. I had never heard of them previously (looks like they aren't generally in the regions I haunt, so their name never popped up for me), so I had guessed they were a missioning corp due to some of the kills, and that you had grabbed the wrong war report.

Thanks for the info.

utter bullshit

They're Germans, ex public enemy.
i hadn't heard of them either till raz decided we were going after them.

Issuing wardecs is a trivial matter.
So is avoiding the effects of one.

There are pros & cons to every decision, including risks and rewards.
Sounds like it works as intended.

Forcing someone to log off and go do something else is not an intended mechanic.
Deal with it.

A war is against a corp or alliance, not an individual.

War should not be manipulated to force an established group to curtail it's recruiting practices, or how it is able to let people decide where and when they want to move.

I disagree with your whole premise.

If you really can't see how your ideas would be abused...