That would make most sense.
Just as an example, cost of immunity would be the same as the cost of wardeccing them by another corp, as it is now.
So 50mil per week for a corp with less than 50members.
Wardec costs dont currently differentiate between Omega and Alpha members of the aggressor or defender, nor the difference in member size of the aggressor and defender.
Seems reasonable. It is a quick and dirty fix too in that it sorts the issue out without any real effort.
The current wardec cost system is beyond retarded.
Makes it exorbitantly expensive for small Corps to wardec bigger ones, and insanely cheap for large ones to wardec small ones.
A +2000 member Corp can wardec a 10 man Corp for just 50mil per week.
For a 10 man Corp to wardec a +2000 man Corp it costs 500mil per week.
The whole system is ass-backwards and just feeds into new/small corps getting mass-wardecced across the board, costing large wardeccers a mere few peanuts.
This assumes that win and lose are binary.
If you have degrees of win and lose then you make the attackers failing to achieve their objectives because the defenders logged out a minimum win. Which means they get some income for the week to come back to.
Remember logging out probably means 10 to 20 hours of not earning isk each person. So even at a miners rate thatâs 200 mil potentially or more. each. The attackers arenât dropping that much Iâm sure.
Actually undocking and keeping making isk and being at risk then would give a larger slice of the pie.
Not only do people not log in, they stop handing over their $15 per month to CCP. No matter how blindly some believe in the âpurityâ of the sandbox, no matter how much they dislike the mechanics changing to accomodate âthat kindâ of player, in the end its exercising the right to take your $$$ elsewhere that is moving this issue forwards.
Perhaps, but CCP can probably tell when youâre interrupting their draw calls to get the screen grabs and might ban you for botting.
Damn right. You know why? Because the existing rules mean that undocking means risk, and why suffer risk when you can just unsure and do something else? Guaranteed win, every time.
Its a bit of a mind-â â â â , but I think it works.
Its not all that counter-intuitive once people think of it in terms of aggressor and defender being different in a war.
The defender can win the war with PvE, PvP and denial victory conditions adding up, and get paid out of the wardec cost.
The aggressor can only win by actually destroying ships and structures of the defender.
However, I think we are all overlooking how stupidly retarded wardec costs are at this moment, and lost perspective on what very obviously NEEDS to be fixed first.
Weve been barking up the wrong tree, again.
Wardec costs are utterly retarded and ass-backwards.
The current pricing structure was applied due to nullsec alliances being so cheap to war dec, but in affect all it did was create bigger and stronger war deckers that unbalanced hisec further. The issue is that the nullsec alliance have no way to apply consequences for being war decked as previously explained so it was a quick and dirty fix that made things worse.
I am very interested to see what CCP decide, but I am not holding my breath on it, and if they do something that affects the war deckers then they will react with ganking to make a point and that will be next on the list, fun times coming that is for certainâŚ
And this is where the CEO teaches players how to cross that area more safely. Which they should already be doing to avoid ganks.
My proposal does not stop anyone using any system, it merely means there are areas where a corp can still operate under wardec, albeit in a limited manner. The limit would not overly impact newer players though.
Wars would also be concentrated into fewer systems, making it easier for those looking to fight to do so.
Stopping new players from playing is not a victory for the game though. By all accounts it is disastrous as far as new player retention goes.
Can anyone here, with a straight face, claim it makes sense or is good for wardec mechanics, that it costs only 50mil for a +2000 man Corp to wardec a 10 man Corp per week, whereas it costs a 10 man Corp 500mil to wardec a +2000 man Corp per week?
Shouldnât we be addressing this core, simple, and obviously ass-backwards flaw in wardec mechanics, above all else?
@Brisc_Rubal and @Steve_Ronuken:
What do you have to say about this?
It should be addressed of course, but most important is that many hisec players are there because they are new, others because they donât want PVP. Neither will fight as they have no desire to. They might do later on, but a mechanic that has not logging in for a week as an option is just plain stupid now.
We went so far down rabbit holes, we lost the plot completely here in this thread.
Its the broken wardec cost system that is enabling large corps to mass-wardec new/small corps, for peanuts. That is what is causing the wardecs that are forcing them out, en masse.
How did we overlook this simple thing when it was staring us in the face, right under our noses, the whole time?
We can throw Malcanisâ Law at it all day and it will stick like superglue to how insanely broken this is in favor of large corps vs new/weak ones.
Iâm slapping my own face here for having overlooked this simple, basic, core issue that is causing the problems described. It is so obvious that we overlooked it.
It is known about and the war deckers I came across in the war dec discord were flagging it.
Seriously, this is now a âfix wardec costsâ thread.
All our involved and complicated discussion here has been completely besides the point, when what is causing these problems is a very simple stone sticking up in this cobbled road that we all stumbled over without thinking about it.
No-one missed it, itâs been debated for a very long time already, you are not the second coming arriving at grand discoveries.
Have you addressed this here, as the cause of the problem stated in the minutes?
Can you link us where you did?
They argued against it when this change was made for the very reason that happened. CCP were told that this would be the impact, larger war deckers. So it is not new and not stumbled upon.
CCP have to find a better way to apply consequences to war decking nullsec entities then this stupid pricing.
EDIT: Letâs explain it for those who have troll moments: The pricing was applied because nullsec entities complained about the ease of war decking them to get lots of targets passing through hisec, nothing to do with nullsec itself. A number of war deckers said it would push towards larger war deckers in hisec and they were right, making the disparity in hisec worse.
This thread is now trolled to hell and back, the trolls are also into the flagging trick to boot, childish⌠I am out of here at this point, I will wait and see what CCP does with some interest and a certain amount of humour, this will be fun to watch and I think an icon sums it up very well 
inb4 carebears declaring they know better than you.
Thank you!
And this in a thread on CCP reacting to why mainly carebears are leaving the game, sniggerâŚ
Tieing wardecs to structures limits warfare. Itâs ok not to like PIRAT, but they have a right to be here like everyone else, just as we accept ganking.
This will then get metaâd in ways you again wonât like. So could one set up such a structure 25 jumps away from you, forcing you and your corp to travel all the way there. Thatâs not different from attacking you on trade routes. If they then set up a second structure in the opposite direction will this get boring very fast. In the end will you have ruined free warfare.
Itâs really just a game of âcapture the flagâ and belongs into factional warfare.