Read up, to my post beginning - I want to make some important points clear:
No edits.
Here is the proposal I responded to:
I don’t know what other one of the many different ones you’d prefer we take into account. I just responded to that one, and you edited after I posted my reply.
But, still just go use the existing mechanics. There is no need for your proposals, none of which are anything more than punative because you personally dislike PIRAT’s style of play. That’s not a great basis for CCP to make changes.
The tools to solve your problem already exist.
As for there being a problem. Even pirat member admits there is a problem. They think the war HQ system doesn’t work because it just encouraged them to all group together, which is more boring for them, and sucks for their targets, who don’t find it worth even fighting back.
The fee structure also encourages larger player numbers under one corp/alliance. This all needs to change if the problem of large numbers of hisec pvpers banding together for best efficiency, thus becoming an unstoppable force to the vast majority of their targets, is going to end.
Yes there are. However those problems aren’t the same as the one you are trying to solve, which is already solved with the existing mechanics.
That’s not what the pirat guy said. He doesn’t like that they’re all banded together. But they do it because it’s what is most efficient. So changing that factor is necessary.
Make war costs less efficient the higher the player count. The most efficient way to have dozens of wars will be in a smaller group. Get rid of the war HQ system so there’s no need for them to all band up. If they chose to stay as 500 people in an alliance, the fees would be quite punishing, when you consider they’d be looking at 2 bill fee for each and every war dec in a 500 man alliance.
Better to have less than 50 people in the corp and pay 50m fee or up to 100 people and pay 125m fee.
Yes, I know what ROBOCOP wrote. However his issue with wardecs is not the basis for your thread. You whole proposal is trying to solve a problem you have, not one that PIRAT has.
But you don’t actually have a problem. The game already gives you all the mechanics you need to not face the problem you are complaining about.
Anything after that, you really aren’t all that great at solving PIRAT’s problems. None of your proposals contain much more than a sliding, more expensive fee structure and get rid of HQ (which CCP won’t do, so soon after introducing it).
No, my proposal also reduces the war fee back to pre nerf levels, for corps under 50 members. For up to 100 members it’s marginally more expensive than present.
It’s only “unstoppable” because so many highsec players are useless perma-victims who refuse to view PvP as anything but an inconvenience to whine about. If the targets of these wars would stop being terrible at EVE they would realize that they have superior numbers and their enemies have all grouped together into a single alliance that can be attacked by the collective forces of every one of their war targets.
In short: use the tools you already have, stop whining about “just one more nerf” because other players are better at EVE than you.
1 Like
and over that?
PIRAT and Marmite weren’t under 100 members. What does your proposal do to them in their pre-change size?
780M ISK per war based on your proposal, for the old PIRAT. That’s an even harder nerf to them than the current mechanics.
Then, for the competition in Perimeter that we’ve seen over structures, you want the war fee to be 4.9 Billion per war. That does nothing but nerf EVE hard and there’s no need for it. You have the mechanics already to solve your issue.
So what if they wern’t under 100 members? With these changes it would be more efficient to split up. They like efficiency.
We wouldn’t split up with your proposals. You Didn’t read what I wrote earlier as to why we came together in the first place.
I was in the initial meetings and listened to our groups put old differences and bickering aside to come together. The cost of wars wasn’t it and even if they ended up costing what you propose it wouldn’t change where we’re at now.
Then you are still proposing a nerf to their community and social aspect of their play, all because you have a problem that is already solved, not because you want to provide engaging play for them.
Providing incentives that encourage small groups (eg. bring back tools that assist small hunter groups, find an alternative that provides incentive for both attackers and defenders other than kill a HQ and all wars end, etc.) is one thing and a good direction. Just holding a big stick over a group unless they break into smaller groups isn’t great incentive. It’s just punative.
2 Likes
Well that’s what you would say isn’t it. You would of course be welcome to continue war deccing small and weak corps for a price of 2-3 billion per dec. But in doing so you lose the isk war the majority of the time.
War dec fees should have scaled with player numbers since the beginning. The current system only encourages bandwagoning.
About time this was looked at.
The mega hisec wardec coalition is made up players who fear so badly harming their precious KB ratios that they play in an entirely risk averse manner. They are alliance sized, rich vets and experienced pvpers. Shouldn’t they be picking fights in null and trying to stake out a claim?
I wonder why they stay in hisec and war dec thousands of corps? It couldn’t possibly be because it provides them with an endless stream of risk averse pvp content, could it? Yes they war dec null alliances too. But only because those alliances are based in null and therefore no risk because they don’t care to do anything about them.
They just want easy kills in a lopsided contest where they will win the entire vast majority of encounters. So they stick to their so called ‘elite’ hisec pvp’.
I’m not dissing their ability. They are experienced pvpers. They should be carving out null. But they are entirely risk averse so they pick on hisec.
How do two sets of risk adverse people actually come into contact?
Sorry, that was a silly question.
What do you feel the purpose of Wardecs is?
You seriously don’t understand how Pirat is risk averse?
Why are you answering my silly rhetorical question and not
What do you think the purpose of Wardecs is?
Your question only reveals that you seem to misunderstand the situation entirely.
Im asking a question in order to gain understanding.
Why do you think they exist (wars)?
I’m having trouble finding exactly when it was, but I’m talking about the long ago change from a flat token fee (IIRC 5 million ISK?) per war to a scaling system that increased with the size of the target, number of wars you have, etc. That was sometime prior to 2012, and the reason large war corps/alliances started forming was that the ISK cost for a war was no longer negligible and there was suddenly a financial incentive to group up and share the cost of your wars.
Could work but it’s still open to abuse just by splitting down to cover more group then jumping corp when they need to defend something.
It would be hard to exploit this in any useful way, especially with a 24/48 hour timer on joining a corp that is involved in a war. Jumping corp to focus on one war would mean walking away from all of your other wars, and if you’re going to do that then why start multiple wars in the first place?
(And remember, the structure mechanics are removed from wars so there’s no more need to defend a war HQ.)
I don’t think it should be limited to a set number of days, I think that wardec corps should get more from taking challenging wars and lose out for farming easy kills.
Then how do you define “easy kills”, if not by player age? It’s the obvious way to settle the issue: players who are genuinely new to the game and still trying to learn how things work get a grace period to do those things, but players who just don’t like the fact that they’re playing a PvP game don’t get to declare themselves “easy kills” and opt out of PvP.
in my opinion the game would be better off without wardecss anyway.
Your opinion is badly wrong. War and conflict are a fundamental part of EVE, and highsec is not an exception to that rule.
I just don’t agree with your stance that it should basically be turned into a battle royale.
It wouldn’t be. Remember, there are limits to how many wars you can declare. That means that every player/corp can be a target, but not all of them will be targets. If you use diplomacy and have some sense about the value of the ships you fly you won’t become a target. But if you come into conflict with other players or gain too much wealth you have to face the consequences of your actions.
Why is mindlessly farming in nullsec with zero risk acceptible?
It isn’t. Nullsec does not have zero risk, it has massive inherent risk that is only mitigated for some players by constant effort to oppose anyone that threatens them. Highsec is the safe neighborhood with a police station just down the street, nullsec is a lawless town where the local mafia agrees not to break your knees as long as you pay your protection money.
Now, you can certainly make the argument that nullsec farming needs to be changed, but it’s nonsense to suggest that nullsec has zero risk just because certain player groups have managed to defeat their enemies.
EVE is a PvP game but PvP does not just mean shooting or evading shooting . This is the part you seem to struggle with. You even claim you get it then you say this. I understand that you like shooting players. But that’s not all that EVE is.
I am well aware of the fact that it doesn’t just mean combat PvP, but combat PvP is an important tool in competition over mining/industry/etc. And you know perfectly well that the people who whine and cry about the existence of highsec combat PvP don’t want there to be any other form of PvP threats either.