If I were running a HS industrial corp I’d transfer all my ISK out of my in corp alts and keep it in the wallet(s) of an alt in an NPC corp. When bills needed to be paid, I’d transfer the ISK and immediately pay the bills.
Now with no ISK…your “forced ISK ‘escrow’” thing kinda no longer works. Or are you going to force me to keep all my ISK in a war dec vulnerable account? What if I put all my ISK into PLEX and just sell PLEX when I need ISK?
Further forcing players to do things via mechanics is generally bad, IMO. It is particularly bad in an MMO like EVE where the primary idea is one of emergence, not top down imposed play from CCP.
I’d love to hear your idea on how you prevent people from logging in with alts for weeks at a time. Scratch that, no, actually, I don’t.
There’s no way to prevent war evasion because if someone does not want to be made vulnerable for a week, they’ll find other things to do. War evasion is not a battle you are ever going to win, no matter how badly you may want to. Some people are just going to be out of your reach. Get used to it. Either suicide gank them or move on.
I’m just going to throw this out there… I know many of you are fixated on seeing shiny things blow up, but if during a WarDec a “lien” of sorts was automatically placed on my ship (% of value), and during combat taking me into hull automatically disabled my ship - ending the engagement, forcing me to dock up and pay said lien to the victorious corporation - I would undock each time and every time against whatever odds.
I’m either going to have a lot of liens to pay off to get those ships out of impound to use again - or maybe I’ve given as good as I’ve got - the net end result which would be a heck of a lot of great PvP engagements.
I believe you’re not getting me here. I don’t fly around in a combat ship all day long. I more often fly a freighter, a bowhead, an orca or other industrials and carry cargo, which I use to make ISKs. I simply cannot afford to take the risk of undocking in those ships when I have a wardec on me.
All the advice you’re giving me sounds like a prank, as if you’re screwing with me and trying to get me to make a dumb mistake. Because that’s all it going to be when I follow your advice and get blown up afterwards.
Only when you’re flying around with a PvP fit then it may be good advice.
So I’m just going to thank you kindly, and not give another thought to what you’re suggesting here.
My idea of introducing an escrow would not stop people from staying logged off, but it would allow for the targeted corp to lose said escrow to the attacker in such a case. At the same time it might motivate the target to actually fight back, as the wardeccer also has an escrow that can be fought over and won. Right now targets of wardecs really have nothing to win, as the wardeccer can and will apply avoidance tactics as well, if a target turns out to have teeth.
It would work like a deposit and could be used to make wardecs more interesting for both sides, but also possibly for other things, like @Ima_Wreckyou’s proposed enhanced contract system, where the payout is bound to a condition.
You’d have to pay these ISK into the escrow account, otherwise CONCORD would close the corporation (or put it on hold, not sure how exactly). The amount would depend on the number of members, so no, it wouldn’t force your to keep all your ISK in escrow, just enough to encourage both sides to not exercise avoidance.
If you were running a HS industrial corp, it’d probably mean that you had at least a Raitaru and a few members. A wardeccer under current mechanics has little to gain from specifically targeting you, unless you’re known to carry BPOs in Freighters and such. With the escrow mechanics, a wardeccer could go for that. At the same time, you had the chance to take allies and go for the escrow the wardeccer themselves had to put up.
Generally yes, but in the case of wardec mechanics it is simply necessary to follow through with it. You already have mechanics there, namely the temporary lifting of highsec rules for ISK payments. Only that this alone has shown to result in heavy use of avoidance tactics on all sides and in return we mostly see untargeted gatecamping wardecs. Since we already have a set of rules imposed by CONCORD, I think it is fair to refine those rules in order to make a targeted wardec more interesting for the attacker, but also give the defender something that actually motivates them to defend by other means than staying docked.
To stay in your example: Let’s say your HS industrial corp is wardecced and you decide to defend yourself or open up for allies. The wardeccers lose a fight or decide to chicken out and not follow through with it. Congrats, your HS industrial corp successfully defended and thus gets a piece of the escrow/deposit cake the wardeccer had to put up (like any other corp).
In the end it’d be a small change. You could still decide to stay logged off or not undock, but in this case it would cost you and the wardeccer would leave with some ISK rather than just blue balls.
An informal contract system to hire mercs for the purposes of defense/aggression in wardecs already exists, and has existed forever. The two parties simply negotiate their terms in direct contact with each other.
Formalizing this in a actual contract system is just adding new paint over old rust, and doesnt fix anything.
There should be cost of war depending on size of corporation. 1 Million for each member of agressor above 50 members. Minimal fee 50M. Every additional player added to agressor corp above 50 member count during war should be 1 M paid to CONCORD.
No. Cost isn’t going to change much and only adds to the total cost of a war. That’s not a sound idea and it will only drive the prices up while players adjust to the higher costs.
Giving corporations a choice if they want to expose themselves to the warfare means they have the freedom to choose. Those who don’t want to join the warfare will get restrictions similar to being in an NPC corp. The players already do this anyway, but it only means more hassle currently and so you’re not giving them all that much really.
On the positive side will every war declaration made mean that it was done against a corporation who willingly decided to participate in the warfare. It makes wardecs more meaningful for everyone and one can then think of reducing the cost for a war declaration. The cost of declaring a war will more often lead to a war, which makes this cost more meaningful as one has a higher chance to actually create a war.
One can then think of introducing a second option where only a few restrictions are getting lifted in exchange for a member count ratio of who can declare war against whom. Let’s say the default restriction are that one cannot set up structures, cannot join alliances, cannot set a tax (it’s a 10% fixed ISK sink) and the number of members is limited to 9. I call this the “mini NPC corporation”-model.
One can then have an option to drop the member count limit and the fixed tax, meaning a corp can grow to any number and tax their members, but under the condition to take part in corporate warfare where an aggressor cannot have more than 10-times the member count in order to declare war. This allows corporations to grow, to still get pummeled by larger ones, but not in the most ridiculous way, and they still cannot set up structures. I call this the “Limited Corporation”-model.
And only when one fully commits to the warfare can one also have structures and become a member in an alliance.
It doesn’t have to be exactly as described here of course. It’s only meant to serve as an example of what one could do. The basic idea is to give corporations a choice on how far they want to expose themselves to the full warfare and depending on their choice to reward them with benefits.
So its a better ISK sink. Is a good reason anyway.
Cmon, what is this 1B for a 1000 player corp, nothing. If they think its too much for agressing some weak corporations with few people inside, alphas mining in ventures, then maybe its not a way to wage war in the first place.
I don’t see it as sound for a PvP game to make wars more costly. For me does this go against the very principle of it. It also goes against the free in-game economy, when artificial ISK sinks get reinforced.
Having options on how much one wants to enter into corporate warfare can work as having more stepping stones (opposed to having just the one), which is basically what high-sec’s corporate warfare is, a stepping stone.
Its about spamming wardecs against everyone, if corps would really care about PvP they would go to low or null, they care only about weak targets and a lot of weak targets in high at that. “Elite” pvp in other words. This game can do without it.
Its about how big and strong weak can grow to fight back rather than removing them from the PvP altogether. If agressor would go and wardec some bigger corp instead of 10 weaker ones, there would be better probability of some action. And if not, bigger drama. Either way a better solution I think.
A restriction on the number of war declaration isn’t going to protect anyone. The stronger ones will simply declare fewer wars and still pick a fight with the weak. This will never change.
But you can allow the weak ones to step out of it by letting them give up some benefits for it.
In a PvP game should the strong not have restrictions on them, only the weak should.
