ISK incentive is an idea I don’t like, just brings more ISK into the system.
Victory conditions are a good idea, this gives those willing to fight something to focus on, as long as they are acheivable and suitable for newer players.
I’m on the fence about structures, I think victory conditions may be better. A structure to destroy may be one of those optional conditions though, give the defenders a choice.
The biggest problem though is that a lot of those in hisec actually like the PvE aspects of EvE, but want nothing to do with wars, political drama etc. They are still paying players and should still have something they can do. This is why I lean towards using system sec status to limit war scope geographically, but also mission levels to offset this. If you want to have higher level missions available, put yourself at risk. Want a citadel for mining, manufacture, a home, then put yourself at risk. Need to sell loot at Jita, put yourself at risk or learn the valuale lesson of Out-of-corp alts.
These need to be choices, with the lower level missions still being available giving newer players something to do under wardec if they choose.
As (Pedro I think) pointed out, none of this can be overnight. It needs to be designed and implemented properly. The sec system/mission level shift wuld probably be the easiest to include as a faster fix to stop the bleeding out of newer players.
The isk incentive is to encourage them to return.
The wardec victory conditions are to encourage them to remain.
The wardec structure system is to encourage them to join up, and hire, to take out that structure to end the wars on them they dont want.
You first, please. We’ve already said war with goals and rewards is what faction warfare is for. Corporate warfare is free warfare. We don’t need to destroy the free warfare, because you and others cannot find the right direction. Choosing the wrong warfare, and not having a warfare-free corporation system, is what’s causing the misdirection in the first place.
And I’m still waiting on your explanation how exactly you think this is supposed to work when the aggressor is paying the defender. It’s sounds fully retarded, unless you disagree.
No, it was I.
Some dishonest, vested interest posters have been trying to demand the impossible, as a 100% efficient, perfect fix, tomorrow, or its a “bad suggestion”. That is neither resonable, possible, or helpful.
I prpoposed a 3 stage plan, to first stick a finger in the leak, and then progressively reinforce the dam afterwards. Point is to remind people that things take time, and you cant fix complex problems, completely, tomorrow, in one go.
This was by Arrendis. Yes, it would reduce isk sink, but if it players return because of it, even at 10% rate, its worth it.
The isk sink loss in incentive can easily, many times over, be compensated by what isk those players would generate in isk if they stayed, not to mention leaving players are BY FAR the largest isk sink delta in EVE, ever.
That’s why I stopped replying to him. He talks a lot, reads your replies and still thinks his own ideas are the only way to go. To narcissistic for my taste.
As has been claimed by its advocates, everything that could do, is already doable with Player Corps, NPC Corps, chat and comms etc, so its a pointless change with no change.
