| Author |
Topic |
Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore |
Posted - 2008.08.12 16:47:00 - [ 1]
In this general discussion thread, it was asked how we could improve the war declaration system. Here are my suggestions: 1. Increase the cost of creating a corporation significantly (at least 100 million ISK) 2. Allow the defenders a one-time bribe of CONCORD (~50 million) to postpone the beginning of the war for 1 week 3. Create a tangible means for displaying how a corporation can win a war - whenever the corporation starts the war they set out objectives, including: -ISK destroyed -Ships destroyed (by type) -Membership reduced (% or #) -Closing of corporation -Removal of corporate offices 4. When a corporation completes all their objectives or retracts the war without completing them, it can be displayed from the corporate show-info screen as medals. Gives victors bragging rights but also lets a defending corporation shame their opponents by denying them objectives. 5. Allow defending corporations to involve a 3rd party in the war-declaration system through mercenary contracts. They will function the same as an offensive war dec (complete with War Medals) with the exception that they pay no fee as long as the attacking corporation maintains the war. 6. Inhibit corp hopping to prevent war declarations - whenever leaving a corporation at war, players with roles must wait at least 72 hours before leaving the corporation. |
Plumpy McPudding
Profit Development and Research Association
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 16:49:00 - [ 2]
I don't like any of your ideas, but I approve of them anyway.
*thumbs up* |
Cinimrat
Amarr
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 16:52:00 - [ 3]
 Originally by: Plumpy McPudding
I don't like any of your ideas, but I approve of them anyway.
*thumbs up*
I, as someone who is certainly not Tarminic's alt, also support this idea. |
Reza Pluss
Minmatar
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 18:33:00 - [ 4]
Wardec system is broken and pay to grief
Supported. |
Xtreem
Gallente
The Collective
White Noise.
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 18:52:00 - [ 5]
agree 95%! add the below and ill make it 100 :P
new players in starter corps are tax free ect
3 months in 25% tax on all income
6 months 50%
9 months 75%
12 months 100%
force people out of the starter corps this way, too many poeple hide behind noob corps, when they should be just for new players |
Franga
NQX Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 21:04:00 - [ 6]
Originally by: Xtreem
agree 95%! add the below and ill make it 100 :P
new players in starter corps are tax free ect
3 months in 25% tax on all income
6 months 50%
9 months 75%
12 months 100%
force people out of the starter corps this way, too many poeple hide behind noob corps, when they should be just for new players
I think this is a great idea. |
Nhilist
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 03:44:00 - [ 7]
Originally by: Xtreem
agree 95%! add the below and ill make it 100 :P
new players in starter corps are tax free ect
3 months in 25% tax on all income
6 months 50%
9 months 75%
12 months 100%
force people out of the starter corps this way, too many poeple hide behind noob corps, when they should be just for new players
While I like the idea of forcing people out of NPC corps, this idea is too open to exploitation. If this were implemented, you'd likely still see a bunch of macroing hulks and autopiloting freighters throughout empire, they would just trade all of their materials over to a player corp character for sale. That particular player corp character wouldn't even have to undock, maintaining the current "risk-free" NPC corp model. |
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan |
Posted - 2008.08.13 04:18:00 - [ 8]
Quote:
1. Increase the cost of creating a corporation significantly (at least 100 million ISK)
No? Newbies should be able to start corps as long as they're willing to risk getting wardecced Quote:
2. Allow the defenders a one-time bribe of CONCORD (~50 million) to postpone the beginning of the war for 1 week
eh? Maybe a couple days, but not a full week. Quote:
3. Create a tangible means for displaying how a corporation can win a war - whenever the corporation starts the war they set out objectives, including:
-ISK destroyed
-Ships destroyed (by type)
-Membership reduced (% or #)
-Closing of corporation
-Removal of corporate offices
Possibly, but it should be optional. I'd like to see a way for the defenders to bargain for an end to the war and not get wardecced again 24 hours afterwards. Wardecs should NOT be totally bound to arbitrary objectives...although I suppose the "closing of corporation" would do that fine Quote:
4. When a corporation completes all their objectives or retracts the war without completing them, it can be displayed from the corporate show-info screen as medals. Gives victors bragging rights but also lets a defending corporation shame their opponents by denying them objectives.
eh? Utterly pointless. Besides, they'd always just choose "Closing of corporation" so they don't have to worry about a premature end. Quote:
5. Allow defending corporations to involve a 3rd party in the war-declaration system through mercenary contracts. They will function the same as an offensive war dec (complete with War Medals) with the exception that they pay no fee as long as the attacking corporation maintains the war.
Yes. Quote:
6. Inhibit corp hopping to prevent war declarations - whenever leaving a corporation at war, players with roles must wait at least 72 hours before leaving the corporation.
no, that's unnecessary hassle. Instead of flagging the corp, just flag everyone who is currently in the corp and joins in the future. If you leave, you're still a target for the duration of the war. |
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 04:39:00 - [ 9]
To be honest, it makes no sense to have a war in policed space. Remove it completely and force pvp into non-policed space, it makes no sense for any security organization that's supposed to be uncorrupted to allow fighting in their jurisdiction. Remove flagging entirely as well. Both systems are entirely artificial. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate |
Posted - 2008.08.13 05:14:00 - [ 10]
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
To be honest, it makes no sense to have a war in policed space. Remove it completely and force pvp into non-policed space, it makes no sense for any security organization that's supposed to be uncorrupted to allow fighting in their jurisdiction. Remove flagging entirely as well. Both systems are entirely artificial.
Who ever said Concord was incorruptible? They just like blowing your ship up, and look for any excuse they can find to do it. Fortunately, they also like money. |
Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore |
Posted - 2008.08.13 14:11:00 - [ 11]
Edited by: Tarminic on 13/08/2008 14:12:16 Originally by: Kahega Amielden
No? Newbies should be able to start corps as long as they're willing to risk getting wardecced
I think that this will actually end up helping new players start corporations instead of hampering them. Currently the cost of starting a corporation is trivial - a single destroyer. This means that anyone can start a corporation by running a dozen level one missions and without really knowing how to cooperate with other people. Increasing this cost means that: 1. Fewer CAOD alt posting corps will exist 2. Players wanting to start a corporation either have to work for a significant amount of time to do it on their own 3. Or they need to work together - the 100 mil starting cost is really the corporation's first goal It will make it harder but I think the end result will help them instead of hurting them. It will also help limit corp hopping, which I think is an unintended feature of the corporation system. Quote:
eh? Maybe a couple days, but not a full week.
I think that a week would give them a decent amount of time to prepare for a war Quote:
Possibly, but it should be optional. I'd like to see a way for the defenders to bargain for an end to the war and not get wardecced again 24 hours afterwards. Wardecs should NOT be totally bound to arbitrary objectives...although I suppose the "closing of corporation" would do that fine
I wouldn't make it mandatory. The objectives part is really a quantifiable way to show that a corporation has achieved victory. Quote:
eh? Utterly pointless. Besides, they'd always just choose "Closing of corporation" so they don't have to worry about a premature end.
You misunderstand - they would still be responsible for paying war fees every week, the objectives are a way of having a public record of their victories. This would be extremely important for the reputation of a mercenary corporation, for example, and a good way to determine of those you want to hire are worth what you're paying. Quote:
no, that's unnecessary hassle. Instead of flagging the corp, just flag everyone who is currently in the corp and joins in the future. If you leave, you're still a target for the duration of the war.
I wouldn't mind that either but I'm not sure how feasible it is from a technical perspective. |
Aero089
Exiled.
The Kadeshi
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 15:52:00 - [ 12]
Edited by: Aero089 on 13/08/2008 15:52:22
1,2,3 and 4 I don't care about. 5 and 6 are excellent however, as it makes mercenaries viable. |
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 17:46:00 - [ 13]
Not sure I support all your ideas, but I support this and that war decs need a complete rehaul.
Most importantly, they need a win/loss objective and an impact to the deccing corp if they fail their war objective. Plus, a counter way that a corp who is war decced can achieve to end the war in a win or loss scenario. |
Nhilist
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 19:54:00 - [ 14]
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
Most importantly, they need a win/loss objective and an impact to the deccing corp if they fail their war objective. Plus, a counter way that a corp who is war decced can achieve to end the war in a win or loss scenario.
Why? This just puts artificial limitations upon war decs and adds pointless complexity. |
Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore |
Posted - 2008.08.13 22:38:00 - [ 15]
Originally by: Nhilist
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
Most importantly, they need a win/loss objective and an impact to the deccing corp if they fail their war objective. Plus, a counter way that a corp who is war decced can achieve to end the war in a win or loss scenario.
Why? This just puts artificial limitations upon war decs and adds pointless complexity.
I don't think it should ever be required. The objectives should be a way for: 1. Attacking corps to have a tangible record of their accomplishments during wars 2. Defending corps to deny the attacking corporations these objectives, which puts a blemish on their record |
Pithecanthropus |
Posted - 2008.08.14 01:00:00 - [ 16]
Originally by: Nhilist
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
Most importantly, they need a win/loss objective and an impact to the deccing corp if they fail their war objective. Plus, a counter way that a corp who is war decced can achieve to end the war in a win or loss scenario.
Why? This just puts artificial limitations upon war decs and adds pointless complexity.
As it is now, its artificial. You have corps deccing corps simply for noob kills... or, just to grief. That's as artificial as it can get. There needs to be reason behind it all... its up for the deccing corps to decide what that is. And its up for the devs to figure out a way to implement it.... so after its all said and done, each corp involved in the war has a clear road to victory. What are reasons to dec a corp? 1. remove from space 2. extract isk 3. kills Can you think of anymore reasons? Wars will be so much better if they had meaning and ways for both sides to achieve victory. Why should a corp be able to dec war and then simply end it with not recourse? With no fullfillment of winning, or pain of losing? Talk about zero risk... all you do is pay, and poof you got a war. CCP needs to stop making isk a factor in power. |
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 01:25:00 - [ 17]
I like 3, but it shouldn't be reqiured. 4 is alright. 5 has been discussed quite a bit, and I have no issue with it. 6 is nice, but as people have said it would be simpler to make the wars transfer to the player for the remainder of the week even if they leave.
1. I DO NOT AGREE with at all, and 2 just sounds stupid.
However, you do not have my support as I believe the wardec system is fine. |
All Channels
Assembly Hall
