open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal]:Increase Wardec Fees
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Mothazar
Posted - 2011.07.30 00:16:00 - [1]
 

Wardec is a very good system when not exploited. Certain players feel the necessity to dec noob/bear/mining corps for easy kills and are hurting the retention of new eve players.
Waredec fee's are way too low. It is allowing bad pvper's the ability to get killmails from inexperienced pilots in highsec. PVP should be everywhere but, as example, a 3 man corp should not be allowed to Wardec a mining corp for some free kills.
The idea of Wardec is very sound and is an aspect I really enjoy about this game. Warranted issue between corps/alliances should be resolved with war.
Increase the price of a Wardec to; 100mil a week for single corporations, 250 mill a week for alliances. This is still not alot of isk. It will lower the amount of crap pvp griefers, or aholes looking to get their monthly sub paid for by easy exploits.
What this will accomplish.

1. Increased pvp in low and null sec. The baddie pvper's will have to face facts and do some real pvp.
2. More inviting atmosphere for new players. Having all your **** blown up by some ******* that you have utterly no chance against is not pvp and gives this game a really bad rep.
3. Wardec's will mean something besides; "Mark the 3 **** heads on your watchlist and watch local."
4. Killmail boards will be more fair. As messed up as they are I feel that the worst exploit of Killmail boards is the fact that you get points for easy kills

I don't see any cons to this

Musais anub
Posted - 2011.07.30 00:20:00 - [2]
 

1. No it really wont
2. No it still wont and you sound mad too
3. Still no im afraid
4. Nope and i dunno how you worked this out to begin with

Mothazar
Posted - 2011.07.30 00:25:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Musais anub

1. No it really wont
2. No it still wont and you sound mad too
3. Still no im afraid
4. Nope and i dunno how you worked this out to begin with


No I'm not mad My corp has dealt with griefers like this before they either cancel the dec or don't log on, but thank you for your well thought out responses. Can you tell me why you have come to these conclusions?

Lakitel
Posted - 2011.07.30 18:00:00 - [4]
 

As a high-sec player I have to agree with you here. Sure people might think of high-sec as care bears, but that's because they keep going against the week targets, the unorganized groups, the small corps. I'm sure there are more than enough high-sec corps and alliances out there that are more than willing to give you a fight provided that they have the ability. Going after a bunch of miners and manufacturers is wasting people's time, the victims because of lost income while staying docked for a week and the aggressor because they are wasting resources hunting down a target that is much better at evasion than they are at hunting.

And yes, 100mil for a corp and 250mil for an alliance isn't much, its maybe a day or two worth of serious mind-numbing work. Which is actually another game mechanic people don't really focus on when it comes to this issue. With the war dec fee so low and the high possible losses, it is unfairly biased towards the aggressors, they only need to put so much into the war and they get so much out of it. For example the other day I was talking to somebody who managed to clear out 2bil worth of items from a high-sec corp in a few short days. Although to be fair, I'm not saying that this is a common occurrence, its just an example.

So, to be quite frank, I'd even be for a system that increases the fee as member count increases.

Kin Netics
Posted - 2011.07.30 18:19:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Kin Netics on 30/07/2011 18:19:30
I have to agree with the OP as well. I've pvp'd in alot of games I have always loved pvp and enjoy the challenge of it. A three man corps that preys on a high sec corps that have no chance against them imo is the worst kind of pvp'r. They are not challenging themselves and in Eve's case are getting un-deserved kill-mails. I do not and have never understood this type of pvp. It is not challenging for the aggressor so personally I wouldn't waste my time with it. It would be nice to find a group like this in low/nul on my small gang roams to show them one aspect of real pvp in Eve.

Sephiroth CloneIIV
Rim Worlds Republic
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.07.30 22:07:00 - [6]
 

The current number 100M seems like a arbitrary number, that could be too high or too low. I have another idea to determine the cost.

1 million per member on the war decking and war decked corp per week.

And when war decking a alliance (as a alliance or corp) you add together what would be the cost of war decking each individual corp.

That way the cost of making a war is proportional to how much concord needs to look away for people being attacked or attacking.

That way it would be 200 mill for two hundred man corps to do a war (not mutual), and if two 10 man corps 20 mil. The cost would scale based on how many people get 'tickets' to pvp. So a larger corp could pay for pvp at their level, and a smaller corp could pay for pvp at their level.

Also, have it 2 week limit for war decks to remain active, then 1 week off. So no constant wardecks with rotating corps. (ytali convention not letting people hinder business forever/grief/bribe concord off ALL the time).


Lady Spank
Amarr
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2011.07.30 23:20:00 - [7]
 

Start charging too much for wardecs and people will just resort to suicide ganking and awoxing you.

Nerf to solo PVP and a nerf to PVP in general. There are ways of avoiding wars if you are too cowardly or incompetent to deal with them and if you ARE that incompetent then you don't deserve to make a name for yourself as a corporation.

Wardec fees are a nominal isk sink and should not be increased just because you are risk averse crybabies.

Mothazar
Posted - 2011.07.31 01:55:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Mothazar on 31/07/2011 01:57:35
Originally by: Lady Spank
Start charging too much for wardecs and people will just resort to suicide ganking and awoxing you.

Nerf to solo PVP and a nerf to PVP in general. There are ways of avoiding wars if you are too cowardly or incompetent to deal with them and if you ARE that incompetent then you don't deserve to make a name for yourself as a corporation.

Wardec fees are a nominal isk sink and should not be increased just because you are risk averse crybabies.


Trolling aside I can see where you are going with this Miss Spank. I really do feel that someone that suicide ganks you has that right to do so because they are doing it on a fair playing field, that being risks are the same for both parties because the mechanics of high sec. That being the Concorde beat stick and the risk of being in space in general.
I think you are steering away from the issue. The issue here is players exploiting the wardec game mechanics. They obviously do not have a legitimate grievance with said corp they wardec'd and have no business attacking them. I'm not saying take that option away. What I am proposing is changing the rules a small amount as to stop obvious exploitation.

Sephiroth I like your idea better then the flat rate I put out. I think that is a really good idea if not taken advantage of but I can see, myself included, people making tons of alts and putting them in corp to avoid a wardec. Maybe put a limit on how much it would cost or something.

Kin Netics and Lakitel thank you for your perspectives on this.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.31 13:04:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Lady Spank
Start charging too much for wardecs and people will just resort to suicide ganking and awoxing you.



Though, I'm not agreeing to either statement to raise or leave the current wardec fees, I do think this above statement is unfounded. I don't see how making fees more will make pvper want to waste more money by suicide ganking. Suicide ganking has little relation to wardec fees, and its only governed by the amount of isk a gankee is carrying. Put another way, wardec or not, if a pvp gang sees a gank target worth taking, they will suicide gank it... not wait for a wardec on a corp.

Nite Piper
Posted - 2011.07.31 15:08:00 - [10]
 

Recently, I became aware of a real case of a corp being destroyed in a matter of a few weeks by frivolous war-decs. This upstart corp had succeeded in gathering a treshold number of players, like 40. Most of them were newbies, just a few weeks old, but also a couple of real veterans, 3, 6, 7, years old, with previous experience of living in lowsec and 0,0.
For these, this corp was to be a new start, a new voyage through EVE. Everybody was excited about this new joint venture and what could be built of this corp.

But even before it really took off, the war-decs started to drop in. My guess is the recruitment visibility drew attention. Anyway, the young players whith limited RL funds, who relied on PLEX to be able to play, were pretty much forced to leave. The dropouts affected things badly in the corp ofc, but so did the consequtive war-decs. Some old player tracked and hunted alone, but ultimately didn't dare to do something. You see, he would risk hurting his corp even more, prolonging the war by giving the PvP'ers what they wanted, a fight.
It didn't really matter, I guess, because the corp died anyway. The more people dropped off, the faster others followed them.

Ultimately, the real loss here is not the corp or the rare occasion of an assembly of people with chemistry, goals and time zones that could have worked well, but the dozen or so new EVE players who quit playing for good.

This is not something that is good for EVE, and thus not even good for those PvP players who only think about their vain killboards and make these wardecs to have easy targets in highsec.

So yea, I think something should maybe be done about this.

Mothazar
Posted - 2011.07.31 15:51:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Mothazar on 31/07/2011 15:51:40
Originally by: Nite Piper


Ultimately, the real loss here is not the corp or the rare occasion of an assembly of people with chemistry, goals and time zones that could have worked well, but the dozen or so new EVE players who quit playing for good.

This is not something that is good for EVE, and thus not even good for those PvP players who only think about their vain killboards and make these wardecs to have easy targets in highsec.

So yea, I think something should maybe be done about this.



Excellent point and example of the retention this is causing. Unfortunately I am sure the griefers do not care about retention, know what it means, nor understands how it effects them.

Mothazar
Posted - 2011.07.31 16:00:00 - [12]
 

I think another point that we should bring up here is when new people are starting out now they are having a much much harder time then when the veterans started. It's really night and day. The ratio of average skill points to new players is much higher which is in turn making it much easier to be a veteran. I think I can simplistically state it like this: "No-one will play with you in your sandbox if you keep throwing sand in their face."

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.07.31 16:01:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 31/07/2011 16:01:28
Quote:
There are ways of avoiding wars if you are too cowardly or incompetent to deal with them and if you ARE that incompetent then you don't deserve to make a name for yourself as a corporation.


Quoted for infinite truth. Why should CCP have to step in here when it's well within player abilities to mitigate this problem?

Mothazar
Posted - 2011.07.31 16:10:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Mothazar on 31/07/2011 16:16:18
Edited by: Mothazar on 31/07/2011 16:10:27
Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 31/07/2011 16:01:28
Quote:
There are ways of avoiding wars if you are too cowardly or incompetent to deal with them and if you ARE that incompetent then you don't deserve to make a name for yourself as a corporation.


Quoted for infinite truth. Why should CCP have to step in here when it's well within player abilities to mitigate this problem?


Again you are steering away from the topic. This thread has to do this the obvious exploitation of wardec mechanics. Not avoiding them... Please re-read and reply on-topic. I would like to see the other perspective and not a short troll reply

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.07.31 16:18:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 31/07/2011 16:21:06
Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 31/07/2011 16:18:53
That was on topic. Lady Spank put it perfectly - wardec mechanics don't need changing, it's just a simple fact of EVE that if you start a corp you need to be both able and willing to deal with problems that will arise.

It's perfectly possible to do so, and as such changes are not needed.

Oh but of course, if it was a troll reply or had no merit, you'd be able to refute it. Why don't you give that a go? Come on, surely it's an easy point to answer.

Edit: and here's another question - do you really think wardecs would be so widespread if people didn't practically paint a target on their ships? Most of the noob corps I've seen wardecced were practically begging for it - lax recruitment, advertising themselves as carebears, and not having a clue how to deal with the consequences.

Mothazar
Posted - 2011.07.31 16:32:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Mothazar on 31/07/2011 16:34:51
Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 31/07/2011 16:21:06
Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 31/07/2011 16:18:53
That was on topic. Lady Spank put it perfectly - wardec mechanics don't need changing, it's just a simple fact of EVE that if you start a corp you need to be both able and willing to deal with problems that will arise.

It's perfectly possible to do so, and as such changes are not needed.

Oh but of course, if it was a troll reply or had no merit, you'd be able to refute it. Why don't you give that a go? Come on, surely it's an easy point to answer.

Edit: and here's another question - do you really think wardecs would be so widespread if people didn't practically paint a target on their ships? Most of the noob corps I've seen wardecced were practically begging for it - lax recruitment, advertising themselves as carebears, and not having a clue how to deal with the consequences.


I am replying to everyone while I can to be respectful. You are still off-topic. Avoiding wardec is not the issue at all and was never stated by me ever. Lady spank was off-topic as are you. Please re-read and reply or not if you don't get it.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.07.31 16:42:00 - [17]
 

Ok, I'll put this nice and simply for you, because you seem to be a pretty simple person.
(Pirates blow up your general comprehension along with your ship?)

You made a whine thread, saying wardec fees should be increased.
This suggestion had the aim of reducing wardecs.
This suggestion is unnecessary, because the means to deal with wardecs are already available to players who aren't too inept to use them.

Understand yet or do I need to use shorter words?

Mothazar
Posted - 2011.07.31 16:45:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Ok, I'll put this nice and simply for you, because you seem to be a pretty simple person.
(Pirates blow up your general comprehension along with your ship?)

You made a whine thread, saying wardec fees should be increased.
This suggestion had the aim of reducing wardecs.
This suggestion is unnecessary, because the means to deal with wardecs are already available to players who aren't too inept to use them.

Understand yet or do I need to use shorter words?



Ok well I guess you don't get it, or you are trolling. Either way you comprehension needs work.

Mothazar
Posted - 2011.07.31 16:50:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Mothazar on 31/07/2011 16:51:38
Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington

This suggestion is unnecessary, because the means to deal with wardecs are already available to players who aren't too inept to use them.




Is this your point? because besides that you were showing me your leet comprehension skills. If so again let me restate; this thread is not about avoiding wardecs. It is about aggressors spamming wardecs on new players to exploit kill-boards and result is hurting retention of new players, thus hurting eve as a whole. Please if you have something to add on-topic please do so with a little more maturity.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.07.31 16:54:00 - [20]
 

Quote:
It is about aggressors spamming wardecs on new players to exploit kill-boards and result is hurting retention of new players


Your solution to which is increasing costs, which is pointless, for the reasons outlined above. Seriously, do I need to use shorter words or something here? Maybe draw you a diagram?

Mothazar
Posted - 2011.07.31 16:55:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Quote:
It is about aggressors spamming wardecs on new players to exploit kill-boards and result is hurting retention of new players


Your solution to which is increasing costs, which is pointless, for the reasons outlined above. Seriously, do I need to use shorter words or something here? Maybe draw you a diagram?

ok i give up if u refuse to address the issue i can't answer you

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.07.31 17:27:00 - [22]
 

I just did, you tool. You suggested an increase to wardec costs, I explained using nice easy words why this is a stupid idea. You then threw a hissy fit about it being "off topic" when in fact it's answering the key point of the OP - the mechanics change.

Mothazar
Posted - 2011.07.31 17:36:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Mothazar on 31/07/2011 17:37:52
Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
I just did, you tool. You suggested an increase to wardec costs, I explained using nice easy words why this is a stupid idea. You then threw a hissy fit about it being "off topic" when in fact it's answering the key point of the OP - the mechanics change.


Ok, maybe you will understand it this way. I'll just tell you what what's correct. You are supposed to be responding to the topic which is; Your opinion on aggressors wardecing easy targets to get kill-mails and the effect it has on retention of new players. If you have an idea for a solution, great. Please reply with your thoughts. Do not just focus on a minor suggestion to fix the problem but the original post, the whole post. I have outlined the main points above. I do not know what else to do to make you understand this.

Whats your highest level of schooling?


edit:: also do not focus on what others replies that were off-topic. It is not part of this thread

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.07.31 18:19:00 - [24]
 

A significant change to game mechanics was part of your post, I answered it. If you don't want people to respond to it, remove that point.

Necronomii
Posted - 2011.07.31 18:25:00 - [25]
 

I can agree with the OP but I don't think a flat fee is the way to go. I have heard of and experienced people that do this. I gotta be honest if I didn't find a good corp as I did I would of left a long time ago. This will make it less profitable and less inviting for people to pull this crap. So I can see how raising the price would effect how much it gets done.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2011.07.31 20:12:00 - [26]
 

So agreed! It's almost as if you read my recent post on the matter. :)

+1

Lykouleon
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.07.31 20:27:00 - [27]
 

Wardec fees were once much lower than they were now. They were increased because CCP caved into pressure from whiney carebears who want a ~risk-free~ game experience.

If you want a risk-free game, I know of a different game you should be playing.

Lakitel
Posted - 2011.07.31 20:35:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Lakitel on 31/07/2011 20:38:51
Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
I just did, you tool. You suggested an increase to wardec costs, I explained using nice easy words why this is a stupid idea. You then threw a hissy fit about it being "off topic" when in fact it's answering the key point of the OP - the mechanics change.


So what is it? The only thing you said is "The mechanics for dealing with this are there". So what exactly are they? And to curb your next reply: No I am not too inept to see it, I'm not a nub, I'm not stupid, I'm not a carebear, I'm not an idiot in any way shape or form. So now that we have your insults to me out of the way, how about you post exactly what these steps are? And "They are mechaincs in place to deal with it" Is just a re-iteration of what you said without adding anything new, and saying "You are stupid" is not even an argument, so I won't accept that either. In fact, here is a short format of how it should be represented, just to make sure:

- Problem: New players leave because they get grief dec'ed
Solution: X (whatever that solution may be) (Also, let me say that leaving a corp is not viable solution, that's a problem with the game mechanics, not a solution)

- - - - -

I don't know that charging just 1mil per corp members is enough, I think there should be some kind of formula, maybe something like (Number of aggressor corp) X (Number of victim corp) / 3. So say a 10 man corp attacking another 10 man corp would cost 33mil. And again, even that amount isn't even that large, if a corp is ready to start a war deceleration, then they should have more than enough to cover that. I would even be in favor of dividing the number by 2 instead of three, but I'm trying to be fair :P.

Edit:

Let me add that nobody is saying that high-sec should be risk free, what we are arguing here is that the risk is too high because the loss on the victim is disproportionate to the loss of the aggressor. Compare spending 2mil a week to having a whole corp collapsing and having new members quiting the game (and there are several, several cases). So I would suggest you Hatebears keep your Null-sec opinions to yourselves.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2011.07.31 20:35:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Lykouleon
Wardec fees were once much lower than they were now. They were increased because CCP caved into pressure from whiney carebears who want a ~risk-free~ game experience.

I think you got this figured backwards: you want the 'isk free' wardec experience. You can currently circumvent highsec Concord intervention, and keep a corp decced for an entire year, for the measely cost of running 1 single mission! (Sic!) That's absurd. Yes, I know you want griefing-on-easy-street; but if people had just a few honest bones in them left, they'd admit how ludicrously low the cost of wardeccing is.

Lakitel
Posted - 2011.07.31 20:57:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Lykouleon
Wardec fees were once much lower than they were now. They were increased because CCP caved into pressure from whiney carebears who want a ~risk-free~ game experience.

If you want a risk-free game, I know of a different game you should be playing.


Funny, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Between being grief dec'ed until you loose all your members and your corp collapses, suicide gankers (Who have no risk since they get reimbursed the ship cost in insurance), the constant deflation and cost of minerals going steadily down and now CCP trying to screw with us from incursions, such as open WH and sending in the sansha in non-incursion systems and of course the CSM being controlled by you null-sec'ers, I would say that high-sec is MUCH more risky than your blue-blob, safe, NAP-sec space.

If you want to dominate people and impose your control on them, then I suggest you try Soviet Russia, **** Germany or the Middle-East because you were obviously born in the wrong time and/or place.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only