Yes less than a day remaining on hull timer sent evemail to CEO to flag the update of their current war and to open up their new request.
So did anyone come up with a simple solution yet?
The issue is that anyone can create a new wardec without any contact with tennis highlights
/ hitting too close to home
Yes. Just replace…
‘Don’t undock what you can’t afford to lose’
with…
‘Don’t undock, or place in space, what you can’t afford to lose’
My Gloria Solutions Inc. consultation fee will be 10bn ISK.
Yes, but I don’t believe those are part of the official wardec requirements. 
I’m still waiting for the “holy grail” of solutions in the simplest form here…
1 Like
If he’d logged in and gunned his structure it most likely would have survived. With 2-3 toons it would easily have lived. Instead… Tatara | Ember Trails Trading Company | Killmail | zKillboard
1 Like
Well actually my proposal has the exact same consequences as now: an undefendable structure would get blown up. (With the exception of the single limited structure available.)
As for consequences, it would apply more consequences to more groups and potentially more wars than the current. If you had read it, or were capable of understanding it, you’d know that.
Well of course, since you didn’t read it, and you apparently aren’t capable of understanding the many times I’ve stated there should be more consequences and responsibility, then your ‘belief’ that I’ve never covered that issue looks a bit shaky.
It’s a bit pathetic to see you arguing so strenuously against a proposal you haven’t even read, especially when it delivers several of the things you yourself want: more wars, more consequences, opportunity for snowballing wars that involve more players, more defender activity, discouragement for corp hopping; that sort of thing.
Being an F1-monkey in some wardec fleet against mostly undefended targets doesn’t make you an expert on anything. As you so amply demonstrate almost every time you post.
4 Likes
Complex issues don’t have simple solutions. CCP has tried half a dozen simple fixes, none of them have been popular (except with whatever small group is gaining the most benefit from each iteration).
Most suggestions here have to do with “making wars go away” in one form or another. This simply won’t fly because while some players might want that, CCP does not. CCP has stated straight out that they want more wars with more destruction, and they’ve gone out of their way multiple times to make structures easier and more profitable to destroy.
CCP doesn’t want less wars. They said what they want: more wars, more interesting conflicts, and some way to get more defenders to participate in wars.
Getting defenders to participate in wars where the attacker calls all the shots is never going to be simple. The best you can hope for is something that sorta works, and isn’t too easy to break or exploit.
2 Likes
Oh…here we go with the same old delusional twisting. It can’t possibly be that your proposal is crazy or ‘solves’ precisely nothing…no it can only be that it hasn’t been read or understood. Rather than actually responding to any critique of your proposals…ALL you ever have is ad hominem.
Then why even have the proposals ? When did it suddenly become CCP’s job to step in and defend people who have CHOSEN to place a structure they cannot hope to defend ?
No…it just makes people jump through totally un-necessary hoops, yet with the end result ( as you yourself admit ) being exactly the same.
It is you who have failed in reading comprehension. I have stated all along that the responsibility lies not after some war has been declared…but way before that at the point where an irresponsible person who cannot possibly hope to defend it places a structure in space. That is the responsibility that you steadfastly evade.
Is the wardec fee still 50-500m ISK?
no, its a static 100 per war dec
Well, that’s something one could change…
1 Like
Wardecs costing more than the cheapest core would instantly remove the financial motivation to mass declare on smaller corps for just farming cores.
And people could still wardec those thes have a real problem with. 1B ISK isn’t even the cost for one well fitted T3C or a T2fitted Marauder, any established corp can afford that easily. Stepping in as allies in defensive wars could be ‘free’ or very cheap so even ‘poor’ beginner corps could participate by offering help as allies in a bigger war.
1 Like
Exactly. What were you thinking - 500m per wardec?
1 Like
Well, you haven’t actually ‘critiqued’ anything about it. And anything you have said about it is wrong. So that’s one way to know you haven’t read it. Also the way you keep getting this wrong:
Since there’s nothing in the proposal that changes how player groups (or CCP) need to defend their own structures. Structure bash wars remain the same and Wrecking Machine can still do as many as they like, no limit. Plus of course there’s this:
You know, it’s not an ‘ad hominem’ if you’re simply describing facts. (BTW, it’s ‘lobotomy’. You’re welcome.)
Wow, you get thicker with every post, don’t you? Trying to argue against something you’ve never even read puts you in these positions, where you make ridiculous statements that are indefensible. It’s the main reason nobody takes your posts seriously.
There are no extra hoops to jump through. It’s all normal gameplay and wars as usual. And I said it maintains most of the same war mechanics, and gives consequences to more players. I didn’t say all those consequences were the same ones. Just another sad glimpse of you arguing yourself blue about things you don’t understand. As usual.
Except… that I don’t. All regular structures would still cause war eligibility, and still be war targets, and still have to be defended or lost, just like they are now. In fact more groups have more responsibility for their choices in my system.
But you wouldn’t know that. Because you don’t argue from knowledge - you argue from some ridiculous “invincible ignorance” fallacy where you simply choose to believe one thing no matter how foolish, and refuse to believe any facts which disprove it.
I’m sure it’s a much easier basis for argument than actually understanding things. So long as you don’t mind being wrong all the time and looking like an idiot, I guess.
1 Like
Actually a billion. But you guys are simply missing the point. You can suggest “make most wars go away” all day long, it’ll go nowhere. Because it’s not what CCP wants.
Do you really think CCP can’t conceive of the idea that “hey if we make wars super expensive there’ll be less of them?”. CCP wants more wars and more people active in them. They can make wars ‘go away’ all on their own.
And it still does nothing at all to increase defender activity during a war, which is actually the only thing CCP asked for.
The reason I wrote the proposal the way it is, was specifically to address the issue that it’s possible to give defenders more options and more rewards than “log out until the war is over, oh and even if you win, the War HQ drop is so cheap it barely covers the cost of a single decent ship”.
If your ‘simple idea’ doesn’t give any reason for the defender to participate, then it’s a non-starter. Plus, it’s something CCP has already looked at, obviously.
Before I say this, let me assure you, your proposal was read and understood.
Wars are expensive so unless the reward is billions of ISK, defenders will almost always leave. Industrialists can make a billion a week (or more). PLEXers can make even more depending on how much they want to spend. War dec? That’s where you lose money.
You can’t offer lower taxes (or raise taxes for not participating) and have that be an incentive. It just doesn’t work that way. If you increase the cost of structures to the point of… 10b or 20b ISK to anchor, THAT would work, but only such that the ones who will have structures will be large trillion ISK corps.
To fully understand the point of war decs, you have to discuss the point of structures. They encourage active play in a corp. Doesn’t matter if it’s a one-member corp or a 1000 member. You need active players because you have to feed a structure. It requires fuel blocks in exchange for compression, market, moon mining, industry, cloning bay, etc… Structures have to be fed.
This means structures are a good thing. They are team builders if you build your corporation right with a good leader and good members. And of course, anything good has to have someone bad that’s ready to destroy it. Human nature.
Thus, the REAL incentive for defending a structure would be to remove some of its features from NPC stations (or give it more features unique to structures). Aside from having a corporate inventory and moon mining, there’s very little that’s unique about a player structure and a decent corp can have several moon mining structures going at once in different locations- and even held by holding corps. There’s no way to destroy them all without intimate inside knowledge.
So for a prepared corp that has multiple citadels and moon miners, it gets very difficult to incentivize defense. ISK isn’t going to do it because CCP does not what to offer billions of ISK for war- they only want to reward salvage. Unique features could work though. Whether that’s done by adding in new or removing features from NPC stations, who knows.
2 Likes
If CCP wants (and this is your assertion) more conflict and more wars, then the little fish need to be allowed to “fatten up” instead of constantly yanking them out of the drink.
You’ve heard of “catch and release”, yes? Same premise. If you farm the pond to oblivion you’ll not only never get those “trophies” that you seek - but you’ll end up with an empty pond.
Now I’m not suggesting that wardecs need to be 1 billion ISK - but 100 million ISK is simply too cheap.
1 Like
What ?? It would appear the list of people who can’t be bothered to read all of your incessant rambling includes yourself. I can’t say I blame you for not wanting to re-read your tortured ideas…
So…no hoops, huh ?
- The defender has a new set of options, the War Actions missions. … that looks like a hoop !
- The defender pays to unlock War Action categories for their members to pursue… another hoop !
- Both attacker and defender score points for ship or structure kills. … point ‘scoring’ hoops !
- When an attacker kills a defender ship, any ‘active’ tasks that defender had running are interdicted and their points are scored for the attacker. … and another hoop.
- War Indemnity Bonds provide voluntary war eligibility … war indemnity hoop !
- At the time war is declared, the “Member Fee ” is calculated on a per-capita basis and added to the War Report. … per capita calculation hoop !
- Any new recruits during the war must have their member fee paid, either by themselves or the corp. … joining members hoop.
- Any member leaving the corp must pay their Member Fee into the corp wallet … leaving members hoop.
- At war end, the War Action Points are totalled per entity on a per capita basis. … end of war capita calculation hoop.
- Winner(s) are paid a portion of the losers War Indemnity Bond in proportion to the total point score. … totally altering the definition of end of war, hoop.
- Loser then has War Debt until their WIB is restored, 50% of all income goes to restore the WIB. … restitutions hoop.
- In order to provide incentive for corps to become war eligible, a new ‘Reputation’ system is added. … a brand new ‘reputation’ hoop !
- This system has two aspects, Reputation and Reliability . … oh, no, wait, there’s a reliability hoop as well !
- Half a point is deducted from Personal R&R if leaving a corp during an active war. R&R scores are in the range 0 to 4, no negatives. Reputation gives a % bonus to ISK and LP earned, only when in a player corp. Reliability gives a % bonus to Mining, Evermarks, Standings gains and discount on the hisec NPC POCO tax rate. … requiring a degree in quantum mechanics to work out what the hell is going on, hoop.
Aaaargh…I couldn’t be bothered reading any more.
Seriously ?? There are ‘no hoops’ in your plan ? I can only assume your post was so cringeworthy that you have not yourself re-read it since…or you need a visit to Specsavers.
1 Like