No, they’re already logging off to play anything else from COD to Helly Kitty Online.
Have you seen the price of ‘salt’ and ‘tears’ in Jita lately?
Garbage, utter garbage. 2-5 people who only play casually a few hours on the weekend won’t make the corporation 50 million doing level 1’s and 2’s in a few hours. If the stipulation is the 2-5 hand their 50 million over to stop a war declaration, they could have just stayed docked, logged off and paid noting and still be no worse off.
It just doesn’t stop, does it?
They’re being forced to put resources into something they don’t want to. If I recall there was a colony somewhere that decided the flavour parts of the ocean with tea in similar circumstances.
They’re still putting resources somewhere they either won’t want to, nor will see the benefit in paying. They’re still going to be better off by staying NPC or logging off and playing a rousing game of minesweeper.
In this thread already its been quoted that one organisation has over 100 war declarations…
…which means over 100 organisations will have to do ‘Wallet PvP’ to avoid…
… this from happening.
Where is the ‘reward’ for the target of this system as you’ve said is necessary for this system as you’ve stated in most of this thread?
Where’s the ‘risk’ for the organisation declaring war? They were going to spend this ISK anyway, its not going to matter a damn to them.
The only reason we are still replying to your ignorant and counterproductive ‘suggestions’ is the hope that this one time CCP reads the discussion in this thread and CSM Members who have championed war declaration changes like @Steve_Ronuken and @Brisc_Rubal all work together to create a system that’s better.
Every time you post in here I worry that some misguided souls ( Hint, drone interacting nerf, three rounds of nerfing to Ishtars, subsequent ‘collateral damage’ to the domonix and sentry drones, enosis interceptors ) will think you have the solution and fail to see it for the convoluted, backwards and completely obstinante ideas you’re spouting which will do nothing to address the problems of player retention with the current war declaration system.
When I stopped my first account I think I filled it in as “didn’t have time” ( I don’t have time to log in and be stuck in station ) or ‘payment issues’ ( I’m not paying for this ‘gameplay’ ). The gaming group I was with drifted apart and very few of them still play EvE.
Skill extractors didn’t exist back then, and even if they did I didn’t get anywhere near the 5 million SP minimum that might have incentivised just starting over straight away on a NPC only character.
Was several years before I felt like playing EvE again, so that’s what, a couple hundred dollars I put to farming simulator and Arma 3 + DLC instead of it going to CCP.
The popular saying is “Money Talks” though in this case its finally making “CCP Listen”.
Immunity to Ganks for 50 million a week? 100? There’s no doubt that CCP would get a serious bump in Jita selling these things, that’s for sure.
No wars? CCP removes all the player controlled structures, POCO’s and say they’re making “Low Security Space Great Again”?
What’s wrong with you? You asked for an opinion and it wasn’t to your liking, so you spam out the same talking points again.
How long does it take to get standings on just one agent to run L4 ? Thats not something a bunch of new casual players are going to practically achieve.
If 1 person drops corp, its 0 ISK. Already an option, already not working.
While I appreciate the effort, engagement with certain people in the forums just leads to…er,…nothing.
or just more spam. Your choice, of course.
Tora had a great post listing all valid ideas way earlier and others do offer valid concerns about changes.
Then there is good ol’ “you know who”.
2 Likes
Nobody said it was brand new casual players leaving due to wardecs.
Those would be better off joining an existing Corp that can afford the immunity, until they have learned the game and developed enough to consider setting up their own Player Corp.
Wardec immunity gives them an option to stay and keep playing the PvE they want.
No such option exists at this time.
Then just give them wardec immunity. As long as it comes with trade-offs, like the NPC corp has, there is no real problem.
If people want to play Eve in a low-risk manner, they should be able to. As long as taking risks is rewarded so people have a reason to offer themselves up as content, there is no problem here.
Trade off would be a weekly cost in isk scaling to member count, and not being able to wardec while wardec immune.
That’s not a trade off. That’s a constant cost to drive people away. Eve is not a job.
Why not the trade-off be the NPC tax, no wars, and no hangers like the NPC corp?
I mean it could cost ISK, but as was said that hurts the poorest of the poor. I mean I’m not against a system where being at war is the default, and you “buy” CONCORD protection to opt out, but it seems a tax is a much fairer way to accept a trade-off for greater security than a flat tax. It scales with activity and numbers much better than a flat fee per unit time, which punishes small and casual groups who don’t play much.
You kinda are reinventing the wheel here. A fee to opt-out of wars is essentially a social corp, just a worse way to do it for several reasons.
2 Likes
If you are referring to a “Social Corp”, that would cut out large parts of content from those players, like Corp management, structure ownership, corp hangars etc.
People that make Corps, want those.
Structure ownership needs to be tied to wardec risk. Otherwise you have a 1 man holding corp immune to wardecs for your main corps structures.
Social corps also would not block corp management in their commonly proposed form.
1 Like
Yeah, the thing is one of those trade-offs is going to be no structure ownership. There is no chance CCP is going to give social corps, or a corp that pays a CONCORD-fee for war protection access to structures. Structures are always going to be able to be fought over and destroyed. The only way it would work is if shooting structures is made possible with a suspect flag or something else.
Think the point he is getting at is war is good for everyone.
We blow up trillions which needs to be replaced, through mining, building, ratting, missioning and trading. Removing another way to kill high sec players would have a massive impact on the market.
War Declarations
In the EVE Leadership meeting the CSM was presented with numbers resulting from research into the state of war declarations in EVE and those numbers quite starkly showed how asymmetric the situation is, and how war declarations allow a small number of players to negatively affect a huge number of people, with low risk. These numbers may be discussed
further by CCP at a later date.
Its pretty clear this refers to mass-wardec alliances like PIRAT.
Its a small group, with only 240members.
It has 160 declared wars atm.
Those 160 wars negatively affect at least 1000people.
PIRATS risk is low, since many of those target corps have no means of or interest in fighting.
PIRAT has a wardec history of over 20,000 declarations.
If we assume a conservative median of 10members per Corp, that means PIRAT has negatively affected 200,000 characters during its existence (- re-decs and the same characters being decced multiple times)
To me, its clear this is the kind of thing that is causing players to leave EVE at an alarming rate, during wardec, never to return again, as pointed out by CCP data to CSM elsewhere in the minutes.
Would a wardec limit of some sort help?
There are relatively few organisations, wih few members, that run this many wardecs at a time, all the time.
Overwhelming majority of EVE players would not be negatively affected by a wardec limit as they dont have the need or desire to wardec so many corps at once.
A warded limit won’t do anything to solve retention. And can be bypassed by splitting into PIRAT 1-4 and then moving between corps if someone fights back to crush them.
To address retention you need to do 1 of 2 things.
Provide a way to have a wardec free social group without punitive charges. (your 50 mil a week is punitive because it adds up regardless of activity).
Provide a way to keep them in game when wardecced or get them to return to the game after a wardec. An example here would be the victory conditions giving the defender a way to win a bit of the attackers wardec fee.
Other ideas like wardec fee based on attacker size and wardec limits might provide a reduction in the total number wardecs drive away, but not in the proportion of those who leave when wardecced. And it’s the proportion we really need to address.