This, beside a masked anti-PIRAT will.
And, im tired to say “be careful on what ur askin for”…
Merc groups take time and work. Putting up a structure every week as you get started is ALOT of work. I could defend the structures when i had an alliance. People have moved on and changed, i would be starting again.
The main part is you need a structure to wardec from and they need a structure to be wardeced. It’s stupid.
A lot of work we took was “go kill these miners” as they keep “stealing clients moon ore”, camping systems etc. Now not only are they safe if they go into NPC they can have a corp just for mining other peoples ■■■■. Nothing we can do now unless we gank and ruin our sec status which isn’t worth doing if you are in high sec 95% of the time.
Eve is a sandbox, forcing people to HAVE a structure in order to do something is BS. Sandbox is about choice and this one has been taken away.
The actual issues whereissue was the number/volume of wars and the fact they had no real win/loss conditions so they would be kept going forever if it was worth farming.
Revert and add an incremental cost of wars as I said above.
25m - 50m - 75m- 100m- 125m and so on. This would stop the big alliances having a million wars, allow small corps to maintain their wars and let new mercs build up.
With this system wars would cost:
5.2b for 20 wars a week
31.875b for 50 wars a week. (wrong number of wars)
Current = 100m Per war
For 250 wars it’s 25b a week.
This would remove the Griefer wars and allow actual mercs to operate. I know for a fact that so many fake mercs would drop out as they have fewer seals to Club. A lot of smaller mercs would rise up in there place. Ones who honour contracts and actually want to be mercs.
It would also make “content” wars matter so much more as you would avoid picking smaller corps as they would not be worth the returns on the increasing costs.
They… always could do that anyway. Nothing about these changes has anything to do with that. It just means instead of going npc they sit there as a Corp, but the reality is no different. Either way you couldn’t wardec them.
Not that I’m strictly against incrementing costs, but really, the rest of your complaints here boil down to nothing when you actually get into them.
1 Like
Join PIRAT and continue under our banner. Many have and not regretted it.
Back when i started EvE, that was the limit… did not matter if it was a corp or alliance.
And there was entities fighting wars all the time. Hundreds of mercs groups back then.
And a lot more localized turf wars between those literally fighting over resources.
EvE was more alive and had more robust player base back in those days before the Dec limit was made unlimited.
1 Like
please get into them and “boil” them down.
Says the monopoly, as long as the Russian’s pay your bills you might hold onto this name right?
Hey Selina, long time m8. I think you’re right in thinking that merc contracts are a lot more limited now, more to do with structure removal and less with indy/pve dramas (sandbox gameplay). Even if you find content that has nothing to do with structures the war is still based around the idea the defender owns one.
Tbh the war eligibility was the only change with any meat in it but there are some pro’s to go with the con’s. Neut logi to in house logi was hyped by ppl who don’t know any better but irrelevant to those who do, and HQ structures were a step in the right direction (giving defenders actual options in a war) it’s just too bad CCP stoped there imo.
They seem to be happy with a sort of half-arsed fix. CCP said when announcing the changes that 50% of all wars were by 5 corp’s/alliances claimed that was a big problem yet did nothing to resolve it… guess it’s not that big a deal lol.
But I think you’re wrong in saying small groups cant build up into something. If you get past that its no longer sanbox gameplay and find some content you’re happy enough with to resub your eve accounts, you can find ways within the current mechanics to get by. You just need to shift your mindset form the old to a new way of thinking.
Once you have some numbers behind you, Assist (without needing any structure) or drop a HQ ritaru and dip your toes in. With the war cost change, the HQ loss becomes irrelevant.
Before - dec goons for 2 weeks 1bil isk
After - dec goons for 2(or more) weeks 200mil + 500-700 mil for an HQ
just by timing your vulnerability windows with the day/time you put in the war you can stretch a war out.
If/when you lose the HQ your corp is still intact and can regroup and rebuild. Can still assist for free wars or look to WH space/low/null for fun more meaningful content.
Just comes down to wither or not you think the content to be had is worth the effort needed to get it.
2 Likes
Tainted is right…and to be honest if you put a ritaru up miles away from any enemy…who is going to travel week after week to dec a 500mil structure.
Still I suggest joining PIRAT as we have built a model to enjoy the bigger fights and maintain content for weekly wars.
Tainted, you should forget being a stubborn Scot and just come have some fun. It’s not elitist as we all want but compromise is needed sometimes. Forget vmg, as we have no interest in going back. Come have some fun in PIRAT!
1 Like
Outside of the the normal Corp A wants to goto war vs Corp B, having the increase might be part of the reasoning for the 100M as Corps decide if they really want to spend the extra ISk ontop of the Ammo consumed to bash a low powered station in hopes for that service module to drop etc.
I think you have missed something very important here in making this assumption, the most important issue was blanket target war decs, in that people were war decked on the basis of their probability to move along the pipes, visit market hubs and mission hubs and that these wars could be renewed again and again without any realistic way to end them.
Wars are now linked to the act of owning a structure, and as such it comes down to how important that structure is to the defender. Wars to blanket war dec targets from hisec entities just does not work now because anyone with a brain puts the structure in a holding corp. But this does not matter in any case because the main farming targets for war decs in any case was nullsec alliances. But it met its main goal of making it less of a bind for hisec players and as such CCP are likely rather happy with that.
Of course you can still operate within this and many are. Yes it does mean that the ego type conflict is more difficult to achieve, but it is likely that your target has a structure and it is possible that he could decide to defend it at least once, and even if he does not it is still a loss.
I think CCP are happy with it as meeting their goal of making it less of a bind for hisec players.
I know this has already been said but a graduualy increasing cost would suffice to a certain extent.
lets say the base is 50 mill.
the base being 50 plus 50%, the next war cost being the base of the total of the last times 50% and so on and so on.
1st war dec
50 mill plus 50% of that being 75 mill total
2nd war dec
75 mill plus half of that (37.5 mill) totaling 112.5
3rd war dec
112.5 mill plus half that = 168.25 mill etc. etc
therefore after 4 wars it gets quiet costly to where hi sec wars cant be spammed but at the same time null sec wars can still rage on as theyll be rich enough to keep that going.
on the other hand if youre an alliance waging war than its scaled to the amount of corps are in youre alliance and how many corps are in it for example the cost that i offered but 10% more per corp in youre alliance
so if youre an alliance of 10 corps, it would be:
(10% times the base cost of each war)
75 mill with the additional 25 mill = 100 mill
112.5 mill with the additional 37.5 mill would be 150 mill
168.25 mill with the additional 84.25 mill = 252.75 mill
so hi sec can still be affordable and null sec wars wont be bother to much
personally i would say these numbers would be appropriate to wage war. so its still not as costly but its also not as cheap.
1 Like
How would this work with allies?
Meh… what about a corp/ally have more than 4-5 clients? how much should cost for customers the wars? seems u forget the meaning of being a merc…
EDIT:
Actual possible scenario: Mining corp XXX want to estabilish their moon mining athanors in a system wich ,considering athanors in multiple 1 man shell corps ( wich would be alone an exploitable “war shield” with incremental cost), abandoned ones etc etc… require multiple decs, like 6-7.
It seems a constant in this forum… people talk but dont think deep into what they are proposing.
1 Like
As I pointed out earlier in this thread the war deckers had a system that was easy for them and impossible for the defenders, you could war dec anyone and for as long as you wanted. Now you have restrictions.
I see people war decking corps with low power structures, that they are doing it means that they are making ISK.
You want to get someone with shell corps, it is going to cost you, are your pockets deeper than theirs. Sorry but that is part of the equation that you have to work with, at least now you have to make that value assessment, you did not have to do that since the time I started playing.
This is really sad. So where are all the people now that told us this will bring more conflict and more interesting fights? Another game feature just crippled and useless for the majority of players.
1 Like
if anything this should increase the cost to hire mercenaries as this would drive prices up to hire as merc. corps/alliances would have to either keep their active wars to a limit or increase their prices to cover the initial war payment/assist towards another corp/alliance wanting their help.
we’d still be keeping the assist system in place but would actually have to put isk into the suport of another corp being decced.
for example,
Mining Corp. “X” gets war decced by Pirate corp “X”
Mining Corp “X” can either deal with it themselves, find mercenaries, or hopefully have allies to come to their aid for cheap.
if allies wantede to help them, then the allies would pay a small war effort fine of 25 mill
If they chose a merc group then they would have to submit the request/distress for third party allies.
each ally costingthe 50% isk of what each consecutive war would cost
(25 mill, 37.5 mill, 56.25 mill etc, etc and same thing for alliances)
on the other hand the third party shall pay a flat rate cost of 50 mill so they arent just raking in money by accepting false help. and Mercenary groups will ultimately profit more if they so choose since theyre are more costs and effort in the initial helping as a third party war ally.
(encouraging the method of covering the extra cost after the war is over)
essentially making the use of the ally mechanic more relevant, and who the payer of the third party is known. If people actually want to go through the effort of paying through another corp for anonymous reasons then thats on them but would drive prices up.
im pretty sure Ive got this down so far, im trying to get rid of the “well what about this” question
How can you make that assessment when you don’t know who the make corps are that backed the shell? You are literally highlighting the issue of hiding assets (stations) to protect them and saying that’s a good thing…
So now all HS’ers need to do is have a few dummy corps for their stations and keep their miners in a separate corp that can’t be wardec’ed…all ships are safe (mines/haulers) and nobody knows which stations are whos so…they are anonymity tanked
Win for the carebears…as said a long time ago…
3 Likes
Nothing changed in that regard, they would have all been in NPC corps previously.
The structures however, are not safe…
1 Like
- Increase the minimum taxation on player owned structures by 125% from 1% to 2.25%.
So does this mean CCP is forcing players in HS to NPC stations and removing the competition for hubs? Seems so to me.