I kinda like the general idea of the rework. I don’t know much about war decs other than (avoid trade hubs), but it is really too unfair to the attackers.
I mean a surrender option would be a good addition, but only if the surrendering corp/alliance had to pay the current war dec cost and a bit more (so the attackers profit), but then they can’t war dec them for a week, but after that they of course could war dec them again.
But of course they could not pay and it would be more or less like a normal war dec.
It would be cool if there were incentives to actually fight each other, like which ever side who destroys more ISK of the other side “wins” the war dec.
Attackers would get a discounted war dec, and defenders if they won get a portion of the war decs initial fee.
War Dec prices might need to be changed, but I could see that working. But I don’t know much about the war dec system so take this suggestion with a grain of salt.
Add penalties for the side who declare the war. If 0 kills within the first 24 hairstyle corp start losing standing with Concord, if you got 0 kills during the whole war you got money deducted from Corp account by Concord smth like double size of what war declaration cost you.
IOW, if the corp they are attacking decides to collectively log off for the duration of the war the aggressor loses standings and ISK as punishment for their success in shutting down their target. FFS, why do you anti-wardec whiners never bother to think through the consequences of your stupid ideas?
Not sure where I did post anything of against it. I’d suggesting new mechanics. Nothing stops CCP to implement freeze period during the war when you can’t leave the corp. Silly nerd.
Thanks for proving my point. Do you understand the difference between “log off” and “leave corp”? If the corp’s members decide to log off for the week they can not be killed, so the aggressing corp gets zero kills and takes the penalties.
The problem is not that people log off for a week but leaves corps during WD. I could simply never undock and smack talk to you flashing a in front of your
The current problem is leaving corps. If you implement a “no leaving corps” rule then people will just stay docked until the war ends. You aren’t going to get carebear farmers to PvP, so the success of a war consists of shutting down their activity. But under your proposal a war where the defending side is so terrified of losing that they stay docked for the entire duration of the war counts as a loss for the attacking side!
no one plays a game to not play a game. If your argument is people should log out, the first person to go should be you. If i was a developer on this team, and had the power to change this. I’d bat ■■■■ nerf the crap out of your high sec stupidity so fast, your head would spin.
Sadly, The designers at ccp are absolute morons that should be fired from their jobs, and laughed out of the industry, right along side the ceo and people like you. This is why they are going under. They will never admit it, but i can see it clear as day as a dev, and im sure most people with even a slight understanding of how the interal politics of a company works can see it to.
Even beyond that the mass outcry about the tidi lag, and ccp’s inability to deal with situations like that just make the current population even more Angry, and so, they are only alienating their own population.
Keep Posting on 100 alts to try to validate your redicious positions. Not that ccp cares about such stupidity, im sure they know what and where the problems are. That is why they are fixing high sec in sept.
Let’s see highsec you say,safer for new players you say?The way I see it ccp themselves are trying to force people out of there for years by cuting mission loot down,adding new aggressive npcs meanwhile groups living in null are offering new players free ships,better education on the game and it’s mechanics than ccp can ever hope to achieve through tutorials and better yet more isk to be made than highsec can provide them.The cost of all this being that you have to socialise.
War Decs are a necessary part of the game. Without them, you would never be able to destroy structures in hisec space.
What I dislike is corps that have so many wars active at once that looking at their ‘Wars’ tab crashes your client.
A simple fix to stop mass-wardecs would to have costs increase the more active wars you have going.
So for the first 10 wars active, you pay the current (base) rate. The next 10, double that. From 21-30: 4x base, 31-40: 8x base and so on.
This would, I hope, force hisec wardec corps to choose carefully who they wardec, or wardec corps for some strategic reason (like wanting to blow up their HS citadels), rather than simply wardeccing all and sundry in the hopes of getting a lucky kill on the Jita undock.
The game currently works in this manner, however it is not enough to punish the rates of income they make. There is a few issues at play here, and the isk gain (and loss) ratio of the high sec pvpers is out of balance, but more importantly its highly abusive to the 63% of eve that do not engage in pvp and have no desire to do so.
This is why i purposed a gain of that value over time. Lets say you pay 100m for the first war dec, 200 for the second, 300 for the third, and so on.
Then you’d also gain a “warmonger tax” from concord, that would increase the above base values by 25% per a week, up to 8 weeks (200%). This would help push war decs into proper gain rates, which would significantly decrease high sec piracy and griefing.
Then there is the topic of Anti-Pirate and griefing entities. I am considering on how it would work but im looking at ways a body can engage and be supported in fighting players.
Its like me saying that all pvpers must now mine, because i declared mining war on them. Does that make sense? No. Yet for some reason the game has forced people to go the above mentioned way (killing pvers who dont want to pvp).
This is one sided, and unacceptable. From a business standpoint its suicide. The structures are not an issue at all. There is so many ways to deal with them being spammed in high sec (not that they really are) That this is the last topic that needs to be discussed in the issue of war declarations. In fact, I often think the only reason people do bring this up is because they want the crap in side (on some level conscious or other wise).
So No, War decs are not the only solution to stations.
No, my argument is a simple statement of facts: people will log out. It is an inevitable consequence of the proposed change. Whether or not you think this is a good thing is up to you.
but more importantly its highly abusive to the 63% of eve that do not engage in pvp and have no desire to do so
Too bad for the 63% then. They joined a PvP game, they get to engage in PvP. If they don’t like it they can and should find a different game.
This would help push war decs into proper gain rates, which would significantly decrease high sec piracy and griefing.
Please stop posting this idiocy. There is no griefing involved here, except perhaps your abuse of the forums and everyone who has to read your terrible ideas.
Its like me saying that all pvpers must now mine, because i declared mining war on them. Does that make sense? No. Yet for some reason the game has forced people to go the above mentioned way (killing pvers who dont want to pvp).
Do you honestly believe this garbage? What would a mining war even consist of? Totaling up how much ore each side mines, and awarding the winner a trophy?
Then there is the topic of Anti-Pirate and griefing entities. I am considering on how it would work but im looking at ways a body can engage and be supported in fighting players.
Well, you got that one correct. Anti-pirates are griefers, attemptign to wreck the fun of their enemies (pirates) based on nothing but sheer hatred and abuse. Though why you want to provide support for a group you identify as griefers, I have no idea.
There is so many ways to deal with them being spammed in high sec (not that they really are)
Like what? If a structure can not be destroyed then how do you remove them?
This is easily circumvented by using alt corps and hopping between them. Besides, I am still not clear why mass wardecs are a problem. People assert this all the time, but CCP’s explicit goal with the last changes to wardecs in the Inferno expansion was to increase their use and make being a mercenary a viable profession. Why should there be some limit to the number of clients a mercenary can have?
Part of the problem though is there are very few strategic reasons to ever declare a war.
Wars have problems and providing real strategic incentives to attack each other would go a long way to fixing wars in my opinion. As it is, the reasons players have to resort to to generate any content at all in highsec are often so flimsy, they are quickly labeled as ‘griefing’.
Something that would go a long to fix wars is to implement a proper risk vs. reward paradigm to highsec as was originally designed by never really properly implemented. You should be able to play the game in highsec without having to deal with wars, but you should also be able to play the competitive game vying for more rewards, but at the risk of being attacked. Being a member of a corporation is currently the threshold where you signal your readiness to compete with the other players, but the problem in addition to this function, the corporation also serves as a social group, needlessly coupling increased risk/reward of corp membership to social interactions.
Therefore, make a “social” tier of corp for players that don’t want to compete but still be in a social group that is created by players, but otherwise functions as an NPC corp. That leaves the current version of the corporation to play the competitive game with wars and structures and all and gives players the ability to select their risk and desired level of competition without having to forgo being part of a social group.
Once that is done, start adding exclusive bonuses to Upwell structures that apply to areas of space that players can fight over. This gives tangible strategic reasons for groups to actually want fight in highsec and will give real meaning to wars.
How the good old days are past us when there were more people decing others roleplaying mercenaries and whatnot nowdays ccp has to add new npcs to fill that gap.
and you can’t re-join the old corp for a week due to the wardec. again: this forces wardec corps to pick and choose their targets with more thought rather than mass wardec spams.
No it doesn’t. They can just set up multiple corps and hop around as they see fit. Sure they can’t join the original corp, but they can join another one in the alliance if they needed to. However, they can just more simply set up a collection of one-man deccing corps, each declaring war on a handful of targets, and then hop into them when a target appears and shoot the target immediately. Some already do this to appear non-threatening and hope to catch someone out who thinks a one-man corp isn’t a real threat and then carry on their business until the gotcha moment when half-a-dozen neutrals join the former one-man corp and explode them.
As long as players can hop into and out of wars on a whim, restricting the number of wars per corp/alliance won’t work.
@OP, your track record for ideas is miserable. You seem to loath the core mechanics, while simultaneously completely failing to understand them. Your understanding appears to be somewhere in the realm of fever hallucinations and chemical inspired fantasies: your assumptions have no connection to reality. You do more damage to the game with your terrible ideas and statements than you would do by just uninstalling.
Yes there are issues. There are issues with literally every single mechanic in the game. For progress to be made in any of these discussions, there has to be people who understand the nuance of what makes a thing succeed and fail. You have not demonstrated yourself to be one of those people. Not even a little.
In short: this idea has no basis in reality. It is a solution to nothing, and would gut the game.
Damage for the individuals who think scamming, cheating, abusing others is “good” for the game, or its people. If that is the cause, im ready to drop a universal powered nuke on it, and i’ll call it form posting to the point where the 63% Out cry for the changes to take place, in which case. GG and since ccp is leaning in this direction and planning on making changes in this direction, Get ready for change.
AKA “the EVE developers”. EVE was designed from day one to be a game where scamming, cheating, etc, are part of the game. This freedom to be the bad guy is why EVE is still around long after other games of its era have died. Stories of epic betrayals and scams and general dirty tricks have been responsible for recruiting countless players who want to play a game like that. If you don’t like it then GTFO and go play WoW or some other carebear game where the GMs will ensure that you never suffer any losses no matter how terrible you are.
in front of your 