These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Fanfest: War Declarations

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#61 - 2012-03-24 15:16:50 UTC
Dear CCP,

You just made mercenaries matter again.

Lots of love,

Khanh'rhh

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#62 - 2012-03-24 15:17:23 UTC
Oh, and QQ more, your tears feed me, etc etc.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Tetragammatron Prime
Pink Sockers
#63 - 2012-03-24 15:21:56 UTC
wardec fee should be capped at 1bil or so

looks good apart from that, definitely contemplating grinding up my characters sec status to join in the high sec wars
Kessiaan
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#64 - 2012-03-24 15:22:05 UTC
I'd suggest capping the wardec fee at something reasonable (maybe 100 mil / week), else everyone will just pile into one giant carebear corp that's too expensive to dec, and when someone does they'll all drop and go to a 2nd corp or back to NPC and nothing will change.

KB Link
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#65 - 2012-03-24 15:23:54 UTC
Vherik Askold wrote:

You misunderstand. People don't want to fight goonswarm. They want a cheap way to get free kills off the random goonswarm guy that wanders into high-sec for shopping instead of using an alt.


Players also want a way to wage economic warfare on the large alliances, forcing them into using 3rd parties to go shopping in Jita / trade hubs. Basically, attempting to disrupt the supply lines (to the degree possible). Is it totally effective? Not really, due to the ease of creating alts, but it does make things slightly more difficult so there's no reason to outlaw it.

Hi-sec wardecs are just an expression of economic warfare. Because in hi-sec, there's really no concept of "territory", no way to deny people from entering your territory. So in the end, it ends up just being about the ISK. Either impacting income (can't mission run / incursion), or by blowing up assets.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#66 - 2012-03-24 15:23:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
I'm failing to see why large corporations or alliance deserve additional protection because they are large. Removing the ability for people to artificially inflate the cost of declaring war on themselves is good, but it's completely pointless if you're going to add a mechanic that does the same thing automatically.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#67 - 2012-03-24 15:24:13 UTC
Guess we know what the Devs are doing when not writing those inane blogs .. they are reading the forum.

80% or more of that stuff is what we have been bickering about since last summer or so, hope they appreciate that their players are designing the game for them Smile
Aramatheia
Tiffany and Co.
#68 - 2012-03-24 15:25:42 UTC
meh only thing i dont see as balanced is that small corps have to pay more to dec a big one and big ones pay less to dec a small one.

Not very balanced unless free highsec camping is the objective of war now

As others said big corps should pay higher to dec smaller targets. They should have contemplate whether its cheaper to lock thier target down in stations via unbalanced war, or to just buy tornados and gank them
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#69 - 2012-03-24 15:27:11 UTC
Azmodeus Valar wrote:
My new hobby:

Dec someone with alt corp A

Contact them with Alt corp B offering to come in and help as mercs...for a fee.

(note: I'm saying this is an upside, not a downside to the new rules. I find this idea hilarious...and potentially profitable)

This is why we already have a "merc contracts" channel, where you're very, very unlikely to get scammed (it can happen, but scammers get dealt with, and most listed parties have existed for years). Good to know it won't lose its purpose when these changes roll around.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
gfldex
#70 - 2012-03-24 15:27:21 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
The problem arises if (and when) you have null sec alliances that also have a number of corps based in high sec. With the proposed war dec costs being talked about those corps who are based in high sec will be virtually safe due to the cost.


You imply that you can't make a lot of ISK out of ganking big 0.0 alliances in empire. I don't agree on that notion.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.
Tetragammatron Prime
Pink Sockers
#71 - 2012-03-24 15:28:05 UTC
yess...smaller corp wardeccing a larger one should be virtually free
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#72 - 2012-03-24 15:30:50 UTC
Liam Mirren wrote:

- if you make target corp size an increasing factor, you can also make aggressor corp size one: if you have less than 50, 20 or 5 members (numbers are ofcourse negotiable) that could give 3 stages of lowering cost, deccing a corp while you have 50 or more members should be more expensive than when you only have 3.


The issue with the aggressor corp member size making things cheaper if they are smaller is that the aggressor is most likely to be the organization which plays games with members jumping out just before the war is declared (to drive down the dec cost), then those members jump back in when the time is right. Defenders don't know the timing, so any "gaming" of the character count has to be done full-time.

I say this because the aggressor controls the timing of when the wardec is created. Which means it's far easier for them to game the system.

(Also, if there are diminishing returns on higher defender member counts such as the CubeRoot() method, then moving your membership from 100 to 300 is not a 3x cost increase but only a 40-45% increase. So yes, you can drive the cost up by using all of your alt slots, but it's more affordable to the aggressor to still dec.)
MadMuppet
Critical Mass Inc
#73 - 2012-03-24 15:30:57 UTC
As a casual solo player my only concern about this whole idea is that the corp infrastructure (roles) and permissions with POS operations is so screwy that it would be nice to have something better before this potential 'end of small corps' solution was implemented.

"Forced grouping" is what this appears to be geared towards, which is fine, but seems counter to sandbox ideology. Eh, bring it. We will all adapt, die, or unsub I guess.

This message brought to you by Experience(tm). When common sense fails you, experience will come to the rescue. Experience(tm) from the makers of CONCORD.

"If you are part of the problem, you will be nerfed." -MadMuppet
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#74 - 2012-03-24 15:32:29 UTC


I'd still like to see more ACTUAL objectives.


Allow us to close an enemy office in a station as terms of surrender, for example.

Also, I think a 7 day peace period is too short. Make it a 14 days Peace Treaty.

What stops corp hopping to repeat war after surrender?

I.e.

Corp Griefer attacks Corp Carebear

Corp Carebear surrenders for 50M.

Corp Griefer jumps to Corp griefer B

Corp Griefer B war decs Corp Carebear to continue harassment.




Where I am.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#75 - 2012-03-24 15:33:12 UTC
I'm just going to relink my proposal here every once in a while, until it either gathers support or until a better system gets proposed.

The currently-proposed system would absolutely wreck the ability of small-scale corporations to wage war against larger ones. If this gets addressed, then the overall package seems quite desirable.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Tirias Keshtar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#76 - 2012-03-24 15:35:33 UTC
Perhaps the wardec cost should be based on the size of both the attacker and the defender, rather than just the size of the defender.

Also, +1 for basing it off of number of members active within the last week rather than total corporation size, possibly excluding trials.
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
V0LTA
OnlyFleets.
#77 - 2012-03-24 15:39:14 UTC
"Every corp and alliance will have a publicly available war history. All active and concluded wars"

That should honestly be optional. Else you'll see some corps with terrible losses being deced all the time.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#78 - 2012-03-24 15:43:11 UTC
@CCP;

Your proposal will cost you thousands of accounts, I hope you are prepared for that.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Prince Kobol
#79 - 2012-03-24 15:49:16 UTC
gfldex wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
The problem arises if (and when) you have null sec alliances that also have a number of corps based in high sec. With the proposed war dec costs being talked about those corps who are based in high sec will be virtually safe due to the cost.


You imply that you can't make a lot of ISK out of ganking big 0.0 alliances in empire. I don't agree on that notion.



The point I was trying to make is that you should not have to resort to ganking big alliances.

It is also not just about stopping freighters, its also about stopping their members from being able to come into high sec for any reason risk free.
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#80 - 2012-03-24 16:02:09 UTC
Liam Mirren wrote:
- I'll fully agree to the base cost of 2 mil being silly low
- CCP seems to agree that idiotic high cost (due to a fail mechanic atm) can be too high
- I can see the logic of making target corp size a factor in cost but there needs to be a ceiling as numbers can become rediculous (just do the math on deccing EVE UNI or goons, see what happens) and you'll just introduce another opt-out
- if you make target corp size an increasing factor, you can also make aggressor corp size one: if you have less than 50, 20 or 5 members (numbers are ofcourse negotiable) that could give 3 stages of lowering cost, deccing a corp while you have 50 or more members should be more expensive than when you only have 3.

I'm not sure on the ally thing, an ally can already help you out by simply deccing the aggressors. Also, (sorry if this is already mentioned somewhere) who are the devs working on this?


One or two allies can help. It quickly becomes financially infeasible. With Inferno it can become so cheap that you have a dozen of mercenaries helping out. And those can help out dozens of corps at once. This is absolutely not possible right now.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!