(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)
3 Likes
Its amazing how far some people with agendas will go to try to derail how it applies to them, even when the problem they are causing has been reported by CCP to CSM at a Summit.
They will do everything and anything, not to be called on it, and their agenda wrecked.
You know, the only people you should care to convince itâs CCP. Circle quoting others for 200 messages in a row only makes you ignored. Nobody fukking cares how many time you can say âno, youâre wrongâ to someone who doesnât cares to be right or wrong. Because it doesnât matters what you think or what he thinks.
Only matters what CCP thinks, and circle quoting like idiots only makes you all ignored.
2 Likes
I absolutely think the cost is broken. I can understand why they did it that way, however - the original concern was that small groups would constantly war dec the biggest groups to get more targets, so to stop that from being something that happens over and over, the amount would scale with the size of who is being decced.
Obviously that isnât even a speed bump now, but this is an old mechanic.
1 Like
I started compiling how many players PIRATs current 240 member roster affects, by a small number of players asýmmetrically negatively affecting a huge number of people.
PIRAT currently has 160 issued wardecs. The amount of players they are affecting as described above is exactly the problem described to you by CCP in their stats.
The number is so great, that even Dotlan cant list the total, so I cant use that tool to find how many players they are affecting. This, not even considering the +20k wardecs this Alliance has issued previously.
These are the smoking guns.
It costs 50mil for a +2000 member Corp to wardec a 10 member Corp, per week.
It costs 500mil for a 10 member Corp to wardec a +2000 member Corp, for a week.
Can you explain that?
He just did.
The idea was to scale the costs based on how many targets the war provided. More ISK for more targets.
I think everyone agrees it isnât ideal, but there was a reason behind the choice.
Given how fluid corps membership is and how easy it is to game, I would just flatten war prices and have everyone pay the same. Using ISK as a disincentive to intended game behaviour never sit well with me anyway.
1 Like
Says the guy with 300+ posts 
1 Like
In only 5 days too 
Everyone knows who he is, hence the wall of QQ he keeps typing
How about a rework of the entire system because that bandaid still wonât help your small Indy corp. In fact Iâd go as far as saying the people who would benefit the most would be the same people you seem convinced it will hurt.
I agree about a lack of conflict drivers though. Turns out though structures arenât a good one for Indy corps tbh. There is virtually no reason to take one down other than âlolsâ
1 Like
I really donât think the costs are a factor in the real problem with wars anyway. To my mind the real issue is people leaving the game for a week, then rarely coming back in. Everything else is a sticking plaster over a severed limb. If a person leaves the game they are most likely gone for good. They need things to do in game even if under wardec. Of course this should cut down their options, but not completely.
If players stay in game during wardecs they are still becoming more invested in the play. They are also more likely to become interested in fighting back (though only a small % would do so) because they can actually see the process, ask others about it etc. If they are outside the game playing something else, they wonât be interested.
1 Like
Cost is a factor in terms of new players being locked out of daring it on their own, knowing theyâll likely get their asses handed to them, but also understanding that itâs a massive learning experience.
Cost is not a factor for any group beyond a month or two, unless theyâre terribad.
Suggesting new players should join a corp if they want to experience wars is valid, but should not be a general rule. People who wish to dare for daringâs sake should never be discouraged. First and foremost itâs still a game.
Or short: The reason the price was raised to fifty million was to discourage people. Raising it even more is only going to turn it into a feature for even less people.
3 Likes
I agree. I get the impulse to try to restrict wars or shape with costs, but it seems counter-productive - if wars are suppose to be in your game, it makes no sense to overly restrict them, especially by something as incumbent-friendly as ISK. If they are that bad, they should be completely replaced.
Mass wardeccing itself isnât the problem - it is the mass wardeccing of corps that canât or wonât fight. If someone wants to pay the bill for every group in New Eden that wants to fight them, then let them.
I agree this would be good, but I donât see how it is possible. If players donât want to fight, they wonât fight. Iâd just make the baseline for groups ânot fightingâ and dangle a bunch of carrots to induce them to take the step of engaging with the war mechanic on their own in pursuit of some goal. Either by attacking someone for something, or putting a flag in the ground that says âcome at us broâ for some tangible benefit.
1 Like
That is not my small indy corp, someone else mentioned it.
I assume you are talking about the propaganda structures suggestion? If so I am well aware of the initial impact and how that could make it worse for the hisec entities when the hisec farmers pull back from war decking those nullsec alliances that make up most of their killboard green, due to fear.
This should not be done in isolation, add to that limited social corps, change in war dec pricing, enabling RR between people targeted by the war deckers without going suspect if in fleet and off we go.
Changing the balance and the why people do things is never simple and easy, you have to be very careful in your thinking. CCP could quite easily do one simple step to reduce the impact now, which is apply the requirement that the defender accepts the war, or allow them to buy immunity from war decs. Then they can think of more nuanced ways to deal with it.
They are meaningful losses to the indy corps and they would like to defend them, but do not have the ability to do so at the moment. My hope is that should there be something that forces war deckers to commit then it will create a change in attitude and that is so difficult to measure.
CCP are likely to have to do a quick and dirty fix, and the reaction of many war deckers will be to get destructive with gankers and causing that to be looked at too. At this point I have decided to stand back and watch this coming train wreck with 
in hand as it is going to be rather interesting indeed.
I replied to you in this thread despite my leaving the trolls to it because you are one of the few people who actually got off their butt and did something as a defender, but you have still not understood that many defenders donât have your give it a go attitude and have to be pushed and developed and that nice shiny end war decs structure is a good way to get them up for it⌠Of course I could be wrong here, but why are people so negative to see if something will develop from this?
Anyone assuming that all people in hisec who currently do not contest war decs will continue not to do so if the proper incentives are placed in front of them is just offering their opinions based on their contempt.
I for one have come across a number of people who said that they would fight if they felt that they had a chance and had something meaningful to attack or fight for. They could of course just be offering hot air, but if enough make the step then who knows where this will develop.
CCP should note that it is the HTFU players who offer this type of opinion all the time, perhaps they need to HTFU.
PS Remove the bounty system, it is pretty naff and I would prefer the reduction in lag in nullsec fights.
Anyone who does not see a point in keeping his stuff does also not see a point in taking stuff, especially when he could still be losing stuff.
Could be worded better.
Anyone who keeps insisting that shoving stuff at people who refuse to fight, as a reason to fight, has absolutely no sense for these people, because his thoughts are being defined by greed. Appealing to greed is stupid when there still can be losses had.
Todayâs not a good day for grammar. 
Counter intuitive as it may seem it may be better to limit wardecs to structure based ( war on grid with a structure ) and victory conditions.
Remove the whole camping & ganking system we have at present.
Revamp the bounty hunter system to replace this area of game play. There are many ideas on how they bounty system could work - I like the idea that you would use LP tokens that gave you rights to kill someone within a certain bounty range (the token would be destroyed after a kill - hopefully to be paid for by the bounty if it is not shared by too many people)
The system - as is - you see a red wardec target and try to kill it
The system - revamped - you have an active hunter status (LP Token ) free from concord intervention, you see a red target and try to kill it - For targets that have a high enough bounty there is No right click activate kill right delay just blap them
If I have a high bounty and get killed - For the hunter the LP cost lower than bounty = high profit
If I have a low bounty and get killed - LP cost is higher than the bounty = low profit or loss
If this is too overwhelming for the victims and option to payoff bounties with LP Tokens could be used to balance the system.t
Edit: I would assume like agent missions the rights and bounties could be shared in fleet
end asset safety in ns. just like whâs. fixed!
Not even close. Youâd have to completely interdict any target structure to prevent evac via capital/JF. And killing keepstars isnât nearly as easy as we make it look. 
As a longer term goal,I wish they could also add some sort of scaled war level to the game. A small social type corp who mines/missions together just doesnât have any financial reason to go out an engage the deccer. To the smaller group, a cruiser or bc may represent weeks of hard work and RL time. Risking it by undocking and finding yourself blapped by a logi supported Talos fleet in 30 seconds or less doesnât seem too appealing. It is just another case of binary thinking by EVE devs and, just like their current corporation structure game mechanics, overwhelms the newer and smaller grouped players because you only have 2 choices in that aspectâs game play. Long term development should look at the idea of encouraging people to engage in wars by trying to make the âlesser intensity warsâ more equal (a la RvB) in gameplay so that while the defender doesnât risk a disproportionate amount of their assets, they at least feel they could try low level PvP at more even odds and see if they like it. Just another piece to add into solving the player attrition puzzle.
1 Like
good. and it shouldnât be.