Exactly my point
Finally someone that understands the bigger picture 
@Salvos how do you expect a small bunch of noobs in ventures to even get 50m or get that immunity if they know â â â â all about the game? (Like you)
With my suggestion they can buy a PLEX from CCP, or get plenty via Buddy Program, and buy their Player Corp immunity, at 50mil a week, for the equivalent currently of about 16 PLEX units per week.
So for 500 PLEX, they can have wardec immunity for 7.8 months, with no other income.
ONLY with my suggestion can they do that, as it is is currently impossible, and what you are trying to prevent.
Ok
So letâs have noobs pay rl money to sell plex just to get immunity to wars
Tell me Salvos, are you currently in a position where you can be wardecced in npc corp?
Oh waitâŚ
Lmao
They dont have to, even if they dont form a player corps, or join an existing player corps that can afford 50mil a month for wardec immunity.
The point is none of that is possible now, unless my suggestion is implemented.
It it costs 50mil to CONCORD to wardec a <51member Player Corp, its perfectly reasonable that that <51 member Player Corp can also pay 50mil to CONCORD for immunity from wardecs.
If its good for the goose, its good for the gander.
Its fair and square.
And if they create a corp and canât afford the fee, or if they join one that doesnât know about the immunity?
So fair
Much brilliance
Wow
Too bad, too sad.
Too bad, too sad.
EVE will always be hard for the uninformed that dont do their homework first.
But my suggestion gives them an option to not have to deal with wardecs.
No, Iâm well aware of all that. But if 1 structure in the system is going down, the rest of them arenât safe, either. If youâre evacuating your stuff, youâre not moving it to another structure in the same system.
1 Like
Must be very hard for you then
Just seeing above how little you know about wars and citadels
Its irrelevant in what I suggested.
There would be an isk cost to recover the assets, whether its transferred to another structure in that system, or elsewhere.
The isk cost for recovery of the assets is the seminal change.
Not where the structure to which they are transferred, is.
If you are concerned about stacking recovery costs, such as by transfering to an other in-system structure, and then losing that too, I dont think the costs for recovery should stack per structure they are transferred from. Such stacking costs would invariably make it pointless and fiscally irrational to recover the assets for players that are away, as was your concern, and which I agree with.
Whatever rate is decided on for recovery, would remain the same, regardless of how many structures they have been transferred from due to destruction.
Grab a pen and paper, draw it out, and you will see how this makes much better sense than what the system is now.
The system right now is that thereâs an ISK cost to recover the assets. There isnât one to move things voluntarily between structures in the same system. The reason for that is you can accomplish the same thing with a freighter. Given the size of citadels, bubble-caging them is impractical, so the only thing youâre really saving by transferring assets is timeâwhich, as many of the CCP devs have been made aware, is a currency fewer and fewer people are willing to spend on menial scutwork.
More scutwork == more burnout. Less scutwork, in theory == better retention. Making players pay ISK to avoid the scutwork now wonât work. It might have, if it was introduced originally, but as any developer can tell you, itâs a lot easier to make things easier on the players than it is to make things harder. Taking things away applies negative pressure to retention.
In other words âweâre suddenly going to make you waste time or moneyâ makes people less likely to stay.
And the ISK to recover the assets is only paid when you pull the assets out of asset safety, already. Thus, itâs not dependent on how many times the stuff bounces structures. I am not concerned about âstacking recovery costsâ, because there are no such things, and would continue to not be any even without your magnanimous suggestion to pay for things based on the value of the items, just like it is now.
Your idea doesnât âmake more senseâ. It might have made more sense as a starting point, but those are not the operating conditions we are currently dealing with. Evaluated in the actual landscape of how it will impact player activity and retention, your idea is counterproductive. It will not help anything. It will harm things.
2 Likes
Trying to bump my original idea. Wouldnât a mechanism to disable continuous Wardecâs not be the simplest answer? If I want a war, I can continue it or escalate it, else if I hide behind CONCORDEâs skirt for the first week, I can continue on with my life the next couple of weeks in relative peace?
So Marmite Alliance 1 and Marmite Alliance 2 can trade off the wardec every week? Doesnât really help the victims.
1 Like
Iâm not sure the issue is necessarily about the cost of recovery of assets, so much as the eventual fatigue of not being able to move out of a station for fear of being blown to bits. That would drive me away faster than the fact that I need to buy a new ship every now and again when I do something dumb. (Like fly through 0.4 space in a Badger!)
Thatâs very much a consideration, yes. Thatâs why you want to evac your assets under your own power, rather than letting them get lumped into the âeveryoneâs stuff goes hereâ station that all your enemies know to target.
It currently costs nothing to recover from a structure in the same system, if transferred there via asset safety options of a player.
It currently costs only 0.5% to recover those assets from the same system structure, if automatically transferred there.
It currently costs only 15% to recover assets if transferred automatically outside the system.
These costs for recovery are absolutely inadequate, and as I said earlier, do not incentivize defending the structure, shipping stuff out, nor aggressing it.
I hear you. It may need to be a blanket âimmunityâ. If Iâm ok with being decced, and want the fight, I can go and pick another fight and all bets are off, else I get a few weeks of cooling off.
From another angle, I also understand that that would make structures effectively immune to destruction, and as to another posterâs comment, smart Corps would move their structures into smaller Corps, with the specific purpose of keeping their structures safe.
It isnât a simple problem, with a silver bullet solution âŚ
This.
Pay the the same cost as an aggressor would to wardec you, and buy yourself immunity via CONCORD with it.
In the current system that would be 50mil a week.
That is worth it to immunize a 500mil Raitaru, or 840mil Atrahus, all your corp members <50, and their ships from a wardec.
As long as you pay that 50mil fee a week, you will not be wardecced.
If you cant afford 50mil a week, join a Player Corp that can and does, and form your own once you can afford it yourself.
200mil a month for a Player Corp is peanuts.
Or, you canât get Wardecced for a couple of weeks after a Wardec, unless you become the aggressor. Not saying that I want to be Wardecced, but itâs also not necessarily an experience that you want players to completely opt out of.
Still trying to pretend you have a point by ridiculing the point of others, Dom?
2 Likes
That is an option, yes.
Definitely on the table.