That argument is hilarious. Even if corps split up, people communicate outside of corp chats as well. Corps would also not splinter if they really want to stay connected. Nothing else of the other recently introduced changes like war invulnerability if you don’t have a structure would change either. The good things that would change, however, are that smaller corps can war dec big targets without having to pay a huge sum to do so. This would create the potential for more destructive interaction, not less.
Would make more sense to not allow war decs on corps or alliances with less than 10 members (or whatever) total. This way, corps are actually fighting corps with members in it and possible established, instead of upstart corps with a few people in it who won’t get much of a chance to do anything when they can’t defend a POS they are learning on…or they are being destroyed everywhere they try to do the base line content.
“wardecing” any corp under 10 members isn’t war… it is simply adding more targets in HiSec to get away with killing. This was the whole reason people wardecd in HiSec back before this structure thing. I saw more ships getting popped in HiSec everywhere I went than I ever saw in Null or even Low… and it caused a LOT of people to leave… including myself and 2 friends I tried to get into the game which I had completely forgotten to mention last reply.
You and your 9 (or 99) friends can play the game without having to deal with wars. Form a corp and have fun!
However, if you want to deploy a structure, there has to be a way to fight over it no? It would be completely broken if citadels held by a one-man corp were impossible to attack.
Just keep your war immunity if you don’t want to fight wars. Simple.
I support that there should be no wardecs for corps with less than 10 members.
Also a wardec should cost 10 million per corp member, per week, for the corp/alliance declaring it.
I play eve since 15 years, I stopped with POS stuff after I got killed twice settings stuff up in high sec. If eve had no trading profession, thats what I do in eve, I would have left after those experiences many years ago.
Ive got one alt in a 0.0 corp which fights one of the large blocks in null, PvP doesnt interest me much.
I once had a corp with a few dozen members which got spy infiltrated. Most members had enough of all the wardec from a few day old alt characters wardeccing everyone and stopped playing eve.
No wars for corps with less than 10 people, so that they can enjoy structure stuff as startup group + 10 million cost per corp member for wardeccers would allow a lot of startups in eve and get old players back and more new players to stay in the game.
How many years until CCP may implement these kind of wardec changes ? @CCP_Dopamine
In other words: 340B ISK to war dec an alliance like Goonswarm Federation, 170B for TEST or 200B for Horde? But only a meager 110M to war dec a corp with 11 people? I do not think you thought that through.
% discounts per quantity is possible, CCP has creative game designers. These kind of things have been menioned for many years in the forum, the topic is nothing new.
Discounts already happen. This is the current system where war dec cost is capped at 500M. You have literally described the current system. And it is the wrong system. It should not be more expensive to declare war against bigger targets than smaller; it should be cheaper.
Your idea is stupid because it will create a situation where people use alpha accounts to artificially increase their member count, making them very expensive to wardec.
I like to cut straight to the chase. It’s like some of you can’t see what happens next when you implement your cute little changes.
The inability to see these things is frustrating. Yet here we are, the 4728th time this topic has come up after wars have seen nothing but nerfs and shortsighted changes with no balancing in sight.
With more governments imposing tough measures for covid19 we can expect more of these self-centered whiny threads. It’s enough to make me, a very peaceful character, go out and shoot them or sell mining permits or wardec or whatever shakes their little tree.
Only the content. “context” makes no sense in your sentence.
It’s just BS.
I am not. I literally told you that if someone wants you dead your ship is dead, just like a structure, therefore it boils down to protection. The only meaning of “defend” for a structure that makes sense, is the same as “protect”, so you using another meaning when I ask the question about your ship is a polysemy fallacy : your answer actually makes no sense in the context.
So yes, your answer was BS in the first place.
And my point that you call imaginary, was that it was not contextually valid. Learn to read.
Just because you want to ignore the point does not mean there is none. It means you are an hypocrite.
Yes, if I had. Which I did not, instead, YOU made mistakes in english comprehension, by removing the context to answer.
You should learn english. And you should learn what context means, you used it twice in a sentence where this word made no sense, therefore I strongly suggest you learn what this word actually means.
People who don’t like the game is not what the game needs either, hypocrite.
Well make yourself a viable target in the first place.
Stop complaining about your gameplay. Who can do more, can do less. Just don’t take wars where it’s not possible that the target will defend. It’s not rocket science, if you want to have fun in the game, stop minmaxing and try to play it.
I think just an increase of 10M per character more the aggressive corp as compared to the defender, would be good, but that would mean the need to lock corp invites as long as the corp is an aggressor.
“People who don’t like the game is not what the game needs either, hypocrite.”
It can be assumed that players who like a game do actually play it and those who dont…Dont.
What is your input on wardecs?
Discounts already happen. This is the current system where war dec cost is capped at 500M. You have literally described the current system. And it is the wrong system. It should not be more expensive to declare war against bigger targets than smaller; it should be cheaper.