I do miss that.
Brainstorming won’t fix a broken foundation, you cannot “fix” these loopholes because they are a core part of the game, you could spend weeks brainstorming the rest of the feature but it can still just be circumvented because the foundation doesn’t work
No because your idea wants to scale on how much they outnumber of outgun your opponents, which doesn’t work when you can scale your own numbers to prevent the increases you would normally suffer because you’re using a bunch of large corps, if i know x corp has 20 people in i would never declare war with a single corp of over 20 people to circumvent the price increases, hell i would probably try to game it even further by deccing with 2 corps of 10 so i can still bring the same firepower but by making the game see me as the “weaker” side
Then you’re not getting more people in low sec, because gate camps are a core part of EVE and you beat them with player intel, CCP can’t do anything about that
Which is entirely circumvented by using a holding corp, that holding corp of 1 alt gets pulled in to “defend” while still getting paid by your guys because they beat them previously, i mean sounds like a pretty sweet way to make money especially if you cycle through holding corps so you can then profit from dragging your holding corp back in to a war lol
I’m not trying too hard i’m pointing out the super obvious flaws, i mean i’m posting on my main so you’re free to look up what i do or don’t do ingame, all my alts are in the same corp so yeah no vested interests, i’m just someone who actually looks at the game and can spot a loophole, i would be more worried about players who aren’t able to spot these mechanical loopholes, should they really be playing a game this complex?
So you admit it wouldn’t actually solve any issues and that you want to break up groups just for the sake of breaking up groups?
Because this idea doesn’t solve the issue you seem to think is actually an issue
I don’t think you understand how this works, if i dec you with 5 corps of 10 and camp your station with all of the groups, its no different than camping your station with 1 group of 50, you’re still outnumbered and you’re still dead, 5x10 is the same as 1x50
They have the same number of targets just spread out over more alts, literal non-issue and really won’t have the effect you seem to think it will, especially when there is money to be made
This is 100% what would happen here aswell, OP just doesn’t want to see it
I mean, you can just not post those alt on alt kills you know, only the people involved get a copy of the mail and posting them to zkill is entirely optional in that scenario
People outside of the fight won’t even know that one of the ships is fit badly and cheaply in order to lose, also if they are T1 then insurance covers a chunk of the costs involved, and given the amount of money you can charge for protection, you would still be making money hand over fist, its called investing
They also specifically said it was not against new corps.
And player retention did not improve after the last changes despite it being the whole motivation behind the change.
Instead we got the very predictable problem where ‘new player friendly’ corps were lying to new players.
Don’t forget to bring back friendly fire. A great reason for leadership to pay attention to their members and keep them happy.
I just explained that it would be a linear system. Splitting up your group into 2 separate groups to launch separate wars would cost the same amount as using one larger group.
Splitting up your group into smaller groups would simply turn the war into a batch of individual smaller conflicts, with lower individual war fee “stakes” that could be won by the defenders. But when you think about it, that’s actually a net negative for the attackers, because they would lose the ability to provide each other remote assistance during fights.
The ability to “break” a treaty would be built into the system. The game isn’t going to force someone to continue making payments. Treaty enforcement would be up to the players (e.g. the resumption of hostilities if the protectorate refuses to pay, or finding a stronger protector when your current one isn’t fulfilling their end of the bargain). It would effectively be like a real-life diplomatic system, with treaties signed through a digital interface, and payments and timers managed automatically, but with the full ability to be modified as needed by all parties involved.
See, that’s the issue with your criticism: you’ve assumed that the system is presented “as is” and is neither dynamic, nor able to be modified. Yes, it’s easy to find ways to exploit it in that case, but that’s not actually how it’s going to function. The interface would only provide functional convenience for what is essentially a verbal agreement system, like the one EVE players have relied on since the beginning of the game.
No, it really isn’t. There’s no possibility for remote assistance unless all of those players are in the same group. Furthermore, if there are differences in incoming wars between your smaller groups, your individual small groups might have different sets of enemies to fight without being able to use all 50 players’ firepower, unless you equalize the wars from your end, which would make you spend extra money to operate this way.
For example, sensing an opportunity upon seeing that you split up your group of 50 players into 10 groups of 5, I will take my own group of 10 players and declare war on one of your groups of 5 players and interfere in your operations, which I wouldn’t have been able to do if all your players acted as one functional unit. Now you’ll have to spend money to launch 9 wars against my group if you want to be able to use all 50 players against me.
How are you going to “make a show” of performing fake mercenary work against your own alts, without posting the kills? Also, aren’t all war kills part of the public API?
The possibility to scam in this manner does exist, and it should, but most players won’t use it because posting kills would be an effective requirement, and because there would still be some cost involved (you lose money even with insurance, plus there are module and rig costs to consider, and you can’t just use “joke” setups because that will seem suspicious).
This hasn’t been a major issue in the mercenary world of EVE thus far for these exact reasons.
In all honesty it just sounds like a way to legitimize mining permits with a game mechanic, though on a larger scale.
Personally I don’t believe it is organised groups as in “PVE corps” complaining about ganking, it is more the solo casual players who wouldn’t find any change from a new war system. Gankers will simply use the scout to check corp history before doing the deed.
I own four JF’s, none of which is in a corp due to the associated risks, ganking goes on as normal for the majority.
You know this only works IF those taking 25% them can and are willing to actually protect them.
For my time and effort, you wardec my corp then ask for protection money - I’m just logging off till you go away, creating a new altcorp or any of the many other ways to avoid wardecs in highsec…
Are they? Or are they a result of nothing better to do.
I guess you’d say ganking is a “core” part of the game too. I say it is lack of any other content that drives it.
Sorry but breaking up big groups would only benefit the whole game. Large dominating groups are oppressive and do far more harm to the health of the game than anything else.
This may be true for some folks, Sgt. Surely though, you must admit that there are - with all the alternatives available in New Eden - players who are determined to focus on the Highsec Ambush, to the exclusion of all other activities?
@Destiny_Corrupted (I think) has pointed out that ganking began to increase following the Wardec changes, which lead to a decimation of the Mercenary playstyle, but in general, there is sufficient content to cater for most EVE players.
If gankers are bored, they should do something else - or play a different game.
I view it more as a “sov-lite” system. It would be used in more ways than just for protection rackets. PvP groups would compete with each other over territory and protectorates, so it wouldn’t be as one-sided as it appears on paper. At least, it would be more interesting than what we have now, which is nothing.
Those who can’t will die out from lack of good reputation.
You can log off if you want to, of course. But alt corporations and other similar methods won’t save you anymore. The only viable method you’ll have is to go back to the NPC corporation and pay a tax, just like today.
I get that some people will simply refuse to participate in anything except mining or running missions in safety and without interference. But those people should be told the same thing that, for example, gets told to gankers who’d act in a similar manner after barge EHP gets doubled. You can guess what that is.
In case you missed the news? Arsia is now on the csm. you got a rep in there.
Oh Thank god … finally a Frontlines Belieber at the helm …