War decs should cost 10m additional isk for each outgoing war

[Anderson_Geten]

@Winstonia_Barakel

It can be assumed that players who like a game do actually play it and those who dont…Dont.

And yet many players play with a false idea of what the game is.

[Winstonia_Barakel]

At least the gifs in this thread are funny

[Scipio_Artelius]

@WuWuWaWaWeWeDaDa

I support that there should be no wardecs for corps with less than 10 members.

This would end wars all together and provide access to 100% risk free assets in the game. That goes against the fundamental idea that the game is founded on. For the effect that would have, the whole wardec mechanics should just be removed from the game.

That wouldn’t be healthy. For example highsec only players could be locked out of PI pretty much completely unless they take their PI activities to low, null or jspace. If owners don’t face the risk of their POCOs being destroyed, they can set taxes to 100% and/or set use to only their groups. Potentially, no more PI for highsec only players.

With the use of access lists, structures can be owned by 1-character Corps and then with this idea, be completely immune from any for of competition or destruction.

Unfortunately, that is the type of change that would be most exploited by veteran players, not small corps of new players just dipping their toe in the water.

[WuWuWaWaWeWeDaDa]

What about limiting the 10 man corp no war rule idea to 1-0.1 security systems for structures ? So as soon a corp has more then 10 characters and anchors a structure in 0.0 its eligible for wardeccing.

If the argument is that this would kill PvP, then that would mean there is currently no gameplay or resource advantage in 0.0 -> Compared to 0.1 - 1 systems.

[Anderson_Geten]

@WuWuWaWaWeWeDaDa

What about limiting the 10 man corp no war rule idea to 1-0.1 security systems for structures ? So as soon a corp has more then 10 characters and anchors a structure in 0.0 its egible for wardeccing.

dude. The requirement is that you can’t hide a structure by putting it in a holder corp : so holder corp must have the same cost of aggression as the main corp.

Wardec must have a cost, but not a cost that allows people (likeme) to hide their structures in one-man corps(which I do) and put them where someone is actively defending at no cost.

You need a balance between those constraints.

Champion - Perfect In Between (Live at 228 Yonge)

[Nicolai_Serkanner]

@WuWuWaWaWeWeDaDa

What about limiting the 10 man corp no war rule idea to 1-0.1 security systems for structures ? So as soon a corp has more then 10 characters and anchors a structure in 0.0 its eligible for wardeccing.

No, go away.

[Scipio_Artelius]

@WuWuWaWaWeWeDaDa

What about limiting the 10 man corp no war rule idea to 1-0.1 security systems for structures ? So as soon a corp has more then 10 characters and anchors a structure in 0.0 its egible for wardeccing.

Wardecs are a highsec mechanic only.

Doesn’t matter if you have 1 character or 50,000, if it’s in nullsec it can be attacked without a wardec. If it’s in lowsec it can be attacked without a wardec. If it’s in jspace it can be attacked without a wardec. Wardec mechanics aren’t relevant in those areas of the game already.

So I can’t see what that suggestion offers at all and it doesn’t change what you already suggested, which would remove all possibility of asset destruction in highsec and be most detrimental to casual players, future players, current small groups, etc. Veterans would take the most advantage of that and it would be terrible for the game.

[Nicolai_Serkanner]

@Scipio_Artelius

So I can’t see what that suggestion offers at all

What he wants is to have structures in high sec and not being able to be wardecced.

[Scipio_Artelius]

@Nicolai_Serkanner

What he wants is to have structures in high sec and not being able to be wardecced.

I think he doesn’t understand the mechanics to be frank (and that’s ok. Hopefully the discussion helps him see how bad the idea is).

[Nicolai_Serkanner]

@Scipio_Artelius

I think he doesn’t understand the mechanics to be frank.

That was my second guess, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

[WuWuWaWaWeWeDaDa]

Summary of proposed changes:

• No wardecs for corps with less than 10 members
• 10 Million per corp member, larger corp amounts get % discount
• Anchoring of structures only in 1 - 0.1, otherwise wardec eligible

Wishing those who are experienced in it happy insulting each other.
1 - 3 years max until some changes come

Fly (un)safe and have fun in EvE !

[Scipio_Artelius]

@WuWuWaWaWeWeDaDa

Summary of proposed changes:

This would be a disaster for the game. At that point, the only suggestion that makes sense is to remove wardecs all together, as these changes would make the mechanics useless anyway.

Also, with the third point, are you really suggesting CONCORD be added to lowsec, because that’s the only thing that makes that even relevant?

[Anderson_Geten]

@WuWuWaWaWeWeDaDa

Summary of proposed changes:

Nothing of value was shown.

the only interesting one is the one I gave : remove structure from HS.

[Ramona_McCandless]

@WuWuWaWaWeWeDaDa

• No wardecs for corps with less than 10 members
• 10 Million per corp member, larger corp amounts get % discount
• Anchoring of structures only in 1 - 0.1, otherwise wardec eligible

• Results in all corps fragmenting into 10 man or less operations
• Without thresholds and %, this suggestion is meaningless
• This means only those who do only live in Null Sec are Deccable. This is utterly pointless

[JuuR_Zibaoo]

@Merin_Ryskin

The benefit is rewarding the competent and smart players who can overcome the challenges of war and having the incompetent and stupid players get slaughtered and fail. You do realize that PvP and competition are the whole point of EVE, right?

just lol … sorry but thats nonsens … its easy isk for lazy players … its ok … it will not change soon but its useless for the game itself …

JuuR

[JuuR_Zibaoo]

@Merin_Ryskin

• Highsec newbies can stop being perma-victims, organize effectively, and fight back. If they refuse to do so then they don’t belong in EVE.
• Wars only apply to corps with structures, newbies are free to opt out of the war system by not deploying the structures they probably can’t afford and have little use for anyway.

you know you are not right? why you think you know what others can and should do? why you think you have to make rules for others? why you think others have to fight back? they just dont want … and by the way … if you go and try to fight back at lest PIRATE docks up and dont fight … they go only for the easy kill … if you go for there War HQ they just let the war run out and start a new one … so there is a problem with the War HQ mechanic to … if you attack the War HQ you should be albel to kill it within 3 days … so the attacker cant just run out the war and you are again the idiot but thats a other thing … usually you just ccant get a single guy of this tradehub wargangs because they hide like chickens …

JuuR

[Namtis]

@R-0-B-0-C-O-P

@Anderson_Geten

People assume there is nothing to do to save a structure. Why ? because attackers did not make any diplomatic move to start with.

I don’t assume to know what others are thinking. I just know that most of the time it’s abandoned structures that are exploding and we hope there’s some nice blueprint or something inside.

@Anderson_Geten

But just because people don’t suicide trying to defend it, can also mean that your activity is imbalanced.

There could be many reasons why people don’t defend. Having to face Pirat and our reputation with how we fight can seem daunting, I admit. I don’t want to be the only big boogeyman in Highsec. I wish there were other groups that would aide others against us, but that just isn’t the case (thanks CCP).

@Namtis

You seem to be asking for changes which help your mega merc alliance dominate even more. Funny that.

I want changes that actively promote conflict. I want actually reasons to fight. Not every situation is going to seem fair, but that’s when players can use their noodle and come up with alternate solutions other than “roll over and die”.

Like I said, I wish CCP hadn’t destroyed Highsec to the point where Pirat was the only dominant group outside of Nullsec groups that hold an interest.

So going up on the cost of wars addresses a small issue tied to wars. Instead wouldn’t you rather tackle the much larger issue at hand here? Wars are for the most part devoid of any meaningful content and don’t serve much of a purpose. If CCP were to have content and profit as motivators you’d see other groups form and rise to oppose groups like mine. That won’t happen though as long as everyone if focused on small bandaids that continue to lead to infection.

——-

I want Eve Online and Highsec specifically to be a place where you can build the world and landscape you want… as long as it exists through a constant state of conflict. I want everyone to be able to mine, do industry, haul goods, and build vast empires for their collective group / friends but it should exist only after fighting for it and earning it.

What’s more interesting?

• I play a game where I can do as I please with little consequence because everyone is happy farming in their own corner.

or

• I play a game where everything I have was fought and earned for. I rose to the challenge before me and with those that stood on my side we prevailed (or lost)

I think Eve Online in general used to be the latter. Sure it is hard, can be a little less accessible to the mass of casual only players, but it makes for a better game. There are plenty of happy go lucky “MMO’s” but there’s a reason why most people that play Eve Online don’t like those games…

So you want to make hisec into nullsec. Why don’t you just go to null and build the world you want?

[Nicolai_Serkanner]

@Namtis

So you want to make hisec into nullsec.

That is not what he said FFS.

[Ramona_McCandless]

The funny thing is, if these new players you are talking about join a bloc (as many do) then farming without fear of war dec 23/7 is exactly what they would do.

[Scipio_Artelius]

@Namtis

So you want to make hisec into nullsec.

That’s not even close to what was written.