As long as they don’t have the capsuleer logoff timer (the PvP one), it shouldn’t get in the way.
Great changes! Especially the neutral assistance removal and cost simplification.
Actually, I would love to hear from CCP what the difference between abusing a loophole (which is legal) and abusing a bug (which is illegal) is. For me a loophole and a bug are both unintended consequences of how a certain mechanics works, and hence the same thing.
I think you just summed up the difference: one is something they’re ok with, the other isn’t.
From the TOS: "You may not communicate the existence of any exploitable bug to others directly or through a public forum. "
How do I know whether something is a bug or a loophole?
“Should you think that you may have discovered an unknown exploit, please report it directly to us through the “Exploit” category in a support ticket”
File a ticket.
1 Like
If in doubt assume it is a bug until you hear it is fine from CCP.
And as above file a ticket if you really need to walk that close to the edge to have fun.
1 Like
Agreed on the viability of using wormholes to get to/from Solitude or similar locations. They don’t even need to be highsec-to-highsec; a lowsec transit point out of the wormhole should work in many cases because it probably will be better than any pipe route that one otherwise might have to go through to reach a given highsec island.
1 Like
You can use a neutral alt on the target highsec island to find the wormhole. You may have to scout a few systems to find one with workable exits, but the bar is not that high. You just need a route that is sufficiently lower risk that it works better than the direct route.
A few months ago I moved a bunch of battleships from Solitude to Jita this way. My transit points were a C3 wormhole and a lowsec system in a quieter part of the Caldari-Gallente FW zone. It worked quite well; I did not lose a single ship and was never even attacked.
It also does not need to be 100% coordinated for an everyone-at-once move. If you need to scout out a decent wormhole route several different times, you just do it. Once most of the folks involved have a few ships moved onto the island somewhere, you can pick an attack whenever. If the opposing forces are heavily patrolling the island and/or it is small, just use neutral alts to move the ships if you can.
Wouldn’t work the way you think it does. All they would have to do is roll up a high-sec SIG for what they want to do and for the duration of the operation have the interested parties roll into a small purpose made corp kept specifically out of the alliance for minimum overhead. Through in ACLs and bluing the corp made for the purpose and its like they never left the alliance anyways!
As such your “cost” chart is completely irrelevant due to player work around.
At which point it’s only a small group you have to worry about, they have to have a war HQ, and remote assistance from the main alliance cant happen. So… Not seeing the problem here, this sounds a much better way forward than goons declaring war on a 10 man corp.
Size based costs presumably come with costs for joining an in progress war also on the attackers side, as that’s such an obvious need it shouldn’t have to be stated but someone will pick on it if not.
1 Like
Except then it’s only that small SIG that can engage in the highsec war. You can’t, for example, decide ‘you know what, let’s go bring 4 more fleets of Jackdaws for this timer’.
I’d say that since we’re talking about a whole system being run on a bunch of computers millions of times more powerful than the ones they used on the Space Shuttles, they could try something really nuts, and have it check the wardec math again when people join/leave the corp, and debit/credit the corp/alliance wallet the appropriate amount in real-time.
And, since none of that affects things going on in space, that can all be off-loaded to the cloud architecture, and not impact game performance.
1 Like
Solid Concept, solves huge problems.
Suggestions:
War Cost is too low, especially for frivolous wars. A simple way of increasing the cost would be a tiered system based off number of active omega accounts. 100million isk/week for <500 members. 250m isk/week for <1000 members. 500m isk <5000, 1b isk/week for >5000.
Also suggest changing the 2 week post-war cooldown to 4 weeks. Since we’re talking having to grind through a structure and all the timers associated, a 4 week break seems more reasonable.
If I suggest something that I have thought about and others have thought about, it is not a dig or an attack on the people who thought about it. A number of ideas I came out with on my own back having not read anything from other people but I am not claiming that they are my ideas or solely my ideas. The contract idea for mercs on a take down is something I have seen from multiple sources however and I agree that it could work.
That you suggested it, I suggested it and multiple others have also suggested it makes it a good idea.
We have some different ideas, but you are a thoughtful player who really went into it and good on you. I am glad to see you linking your ideas and I hope that the devs and Brisc read through them. As I said I had not read that thread you linked before you linked it here.
My main theme is to make it so that the defender wants to step up and fight, give it a go and have mechanics that enable him to step up to the plate and I would go as far as adjusting things in their favour a bit before scaling it back.
I have said that the war dec mechanics overall are quite good and just needed some adjustment, what was the main issue is how the player base developed and that needs to be adjusted in some way and it applies to both war deckers and defenders.
No, no one is saying that.
Neutral logi will be Concorded.
If you’re dumb enough to rep the enemy, well that just deserves them killing you, which they’ll be trying to do and Concord won’t interfere in your Darwin Award attempt.
I think your high end is too low. I, personally, if I wanted to, could afford 1b/wk. An alliance of 5000 characters? up it. A lot. I mean, think about the way your math works out.
1B/5000 = 200,000 per person, per week.
100M/500 == 200,000 per person, per week.
If a 5000-pilot alliance is not making more money, per person, than a 500-pilot alliance, not only is the 5000-pilot alliance doing something wrong… so are those 5,000 pilots, because clearly, they are not in a good place.
And that’s just at the cheapest end of the 100M tier, and the most expensive end of the 5000+ tier.
What if it’s a 10-man corp? Well, that’s 10M ISK/wk, each.
And heck, let’s look at the actual numbers on all 7 5000+ pilot alliances: (All costs ‘per pilot’)
The Initiative: 5,147 pilots: 194,287.93 ISK/wk
Brothers of Tangra[1]: 6,379 pilots: 156,764.38 ISK/wk
BRAVE: 9,682 pilots: 103,284.44 ISK/wk
Fraternity: 10,054 pilots: 99,462.90 ISK/wk
TEST: 16,041 pilots: 62,340.25 ISK/wk
Horde: 17,917 pilots: 55,812.91 ISK/wk
Goons: 34,825 pilots: 28,715.00 ISK/wk
Any system that has Goonswarm paying, per character, less than 3%[2] of the cost that a 10-man corp would incur is horribly broken. And that’s with a sliding scale in play. So don’t think I’m arguing against increasing the costs. I’m arguing for increasing them more, as I posted above.
Ideally, there should be a proportional element, too, like ‘if you’re dec’ing someone 1/10th your size, you pay 5x as much. If you’re dec’ing someone 10x your size, you pay 1/5th’ to discourage ‘punching down’ (aka ‘picking on the kid in the helmet’). But, you know, that’d take math, and it’s not like this is all being done on compu-waitaminnit…
- We’ll ignore the fact that these guys are all renters, so they’re not dec’ing anyone.
- 10,000,000 vs 28,715. Seriously. That’s nuts. I promise, we can afford more. TAX THE DAMNED RICH, you know? (And just think, under the ‘100M’ flat fee for ‘simplified math’, that’s cough 2,871.5ISK per goon, per week. We could afford to dec basically everyone like that.)
1 Like
Well, the problem is that you don’t get a useful answer. I filled quite a number of tickets about exactly the abused mentioned in this devblog, and you get answers like ‘we may or may not take action’.
So I don’t even know whether I risk getting banned for just talking with corp mates about them (while the guy abusing them was bragging that he used it all over the place).
Bring back starbase charter permits?
Numbers were for example purposes only, just to give an idea what the tiers could look like. They were really wanting simplicity, so whatever simple formula works that scales the cost is fine with me.
The important thing for me, is that 100m isk/week across the board is insufficient.
Not necessarily the whole ‘buy permit’ routine, but the standings check for anchoring in HS.