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


 
Author Topic

Goose99
Posted - 2010.07.05 13:24:00 - [1]
 

There should be a bidding process for Empire wardecs, if not mutual, decced corp can pay to block wardec, dec goes through if deccing corp can fork over more isk to concord. Losing bids not refunded. It has the potential to become an enormous isk sink and benefit Eve economy as a whole.

Highsec griefer corps won't like this, but there's lowsec if you want unrestricted pvp, htfu.

Grarr Dexx
Amarr
Kumovi
The G0dfathers
Posted - 2010.07.05 14:01:00 - [2]
 

The only person here who needs to HTFU is you.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2010.07.05 16:47:00 - [3]
 

Additional isk sinks are of no benefit to the Eve economy - they would, in fact, be an awful idea. The idea itself is pretty lacking, too - why do wars and mercenaries need such an overwhelming nerf?

Guy LeDuche
Posted - 2010.07.05 16:56:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Guy LeDuche on 05/07/2010 16:57:50
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Additional isk sinks are of no benefit to the Eve economy - they would, in fact, be an awful idea. The idea itself is pretty lacking, too - why do wars and mercenaries need such an overwhelming nerf?


Looks good. Merc dec costs are paid by employer, as is currently the case. It would just mean employer may have to pay more depending on target. The mercs nerfed by this are kb padders who's hired by no one and therefore will have to pay up themselves. Oh well, that's okay.

Isk sink benefits game economy. Devs says so. It's also a rule in all mmorpgs.

Originally by: Grarr Dexx
The only person here who needs to HTFU is you.


htfu lolLaughing

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2010.07.05 17:10:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Guy LeDuche
Looks good. Merc dec costs are paid by employer, as is currently the case. It would just mean employer may have to pay more depending on target. The mercs nerfed by this are kb padders who's hired by no one and therefore will have to pay up themselves. Oh well, that's okay.


Why would I ever pay for mercs when just counter-bidding the wardeccers is so much cheaper?

Originally by: Guy LeDuche
Isk sink benefits game economy. Devs says so. It's also a rule in all mmorpgs.


Eve has been in a state of persistent deflation for several years. If anything, we need fewer isk sinks and/or more sources. I'll wait to see how the Tyrannis changes shake out, because there were a few significant ones, but those look to have been deflationary on net as well, so I doubt they'll change my mind. The only reason isk sinks are a rule in MMORPGs is that most of them experience crippling inflation. Eve does not, because of its different game mechanics(mostly the fact that stuff blows up when you die, which both dramatically increases the amount of goods you need to consume and dramatically decreases how much of a perfectionist you are with acquisition of those goods). No inflation = no need for additional isk sinking. I've often stated that I can teach someone economics in ten minutes, but you have to actually spend those ten minutes.

sabre909
Posted - 2010.07.05 17:47:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: sabre909 on 05/07/2010 17:47:44
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Guy LeDuche
Looks good. Merc dec costs are paid by employer, as is currently the case. It would just mean employer may have to pay more depending on target. The mercs nerfed by this are kb padders who's hired by no one and therefore will have to pay up themselves. Oh well, that's okay.


Why would I ever pay for mercs when just counter-bidding the wardeccers is so much cheaper?

Originally by: Guy LeDuche
Isk sink benefits game economy. Devs says so. It's also a rule in all mmorpgs.


Eve has been in a state of persistent deflation for several years. If anything, we need fewer isk sinks and/or more sources. I'll wait to see how the Tyrannis changes shake out, because there were a few significant ones, but those look to have been deflationary on net as well, so I doubt they'll change my mind. The only reason isk sinks are a rule in MMORPGs is that most of them experience crippling inflation. Eve does not, because of its different game mechanics(mostly the fact that stuff blows up when you die, which both dramatically increases the amount of goods you need to consume and dramatically decreases how much of a perfectionist you are with acquisition of those goods). No inflation = no need for additional isk sinking. I've often stated that I can teach someone economics in ten minutes, but you have to actually spend those ten minutes.


Real wardeccers based on underlying reason won't give up so easily when counterbidded, unlike casual kb padders and griefers. People will still hire merc for both offensive and defensive decs based on beef, pos spot, market share, or other underlying reasons.

Depending on teary griefed noobie corps under griefers' boots isn't the only way to make a living for Mercs. Before ccp lowered dec costs, Mercs made a living fighting real wars. No reason why they couldn't do the same again.

Item sink does not conteract inflation, it's the opposite. Fewer items available means higher value. Market responds to higher value by producing more items. The current mudflation of top tier deadspace/officer mods is due to too many people having too much disposable isk looking to buy them, causing market to respond by having more ppl farming plex, where they get comfortable and continuously spewing those mods. Isk sink is good for game economy.

Despite what you may think, mmorpg economy is very different from irl economy. Many of the same rules don't apply. Isk is created from nothing (isk faucet) and disappear into nothing (isk drain). It's an artificial, arbitrary system. It takes very little knowledge in economics to spot this.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2010.07.05 19:13:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: sabre909
Item sink does not conteract inflation, it's the opposite. Fewer items available means higher value. Market responds to higher value by producing more items. The current mudflation of top tier deadspace/officer mods is due to too many people having too much disposable isk looking to buy them, causing market to respond by having more ppl farming plex, where they get comfortable and continuously spewing those mods. Isk sink is good for game economy.

Despite what you may think, mmorpg economy is very different from irl economy. Many of the same rules don't apply. Isk is created from nothing (isk faucet) and disappear into nothing (isk drain). It's an artificial, arbitrary system. It takes very little knowledge in economics to spot this.


What I said was that an item sink counteracts the tendencies that lead towards mudflation - namely, perfectionism. An ever-increasing amount of money enters the game, but each player only needs one weapon, one helm, two rings, etc., so that money is chasing a fixed, and very small, number of items. There's also a market in lower-end items, but that gets so badly distorted by all the rich high-level players that the prices are too high for the people who need them, and cheap as free for alts. Hence the need for cash sinks - the game can't handle any significant increase in the money supply per player without massive inflation on the handful of items that are actually worth buying. Eve has no such problem. The demand for goods is vastly higher - I own over two dozen PvP ships, and that's without any special stockpiling for combat - and there's nowhere near the same push for perfection. Yeah, there'll be pressure in different directions on different items, and I'm not surprised that high-end loot is going up as the rich get richer. But if this is your idea of inflation, you're simply wrong.

And yes, I am quite well-versed in the difference between Eve's economy and RL's. There are some noticeable differences. However, inflation is pretty much the same in both cases. The only differences will be the technicalities of how you measure money supply and price levels.

Mr SmartGuy
Posted - 2010.07.06 10:57:00 - [8]
 

Terrible idea. This would not change the highsec wars - this would eliminate them.

Daool
Posted - 2010.07.06 11:28:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Daool on 07/07/2010 03:07:37
"Terrible idea. This would not change the highsec wars - this would eliminate them."

Where there is a reason (ie not just griefing for kicks and random KM's) there will still be plenty of wars.

It will however take COMMITMENT from the wardec'ing Corp, as opposed to the current all care and no responsibility casual wardec of today (heck, many smaller Corps may still not be able to stump up the counter-bid ISK so for that scenario its no change).

Only people I could see against this would be the 'casual' or semi-random griefer Corps who if they are hard corp PVP as they say can still go to low-sec for their easy kill kicks.

Hi-sec will be what IMHO it should be - generaly quiet except for the occasional larger scale or at least more professionaly run (ie commited) well funded 'corporate business by another means'. Still a hostile environment (in many ways more so, or certainly more expensive to prosper).




Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.06 11:53:00 - [10]
 

While i do see a point in increasing costs of high-sec wars, this is definately not the direction it should be going. This idea is horrible, makes no sence, and would ruin gameplay.

Slimy Worm
The Skunkworks
Posted - 2010.07.06 19:30:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Slimy Worm on 06/07/2010 20:27:24
Edited by: Slimy Worm on 06/07/2010 19:31:21
CCP has no right to eliminate wars based on what is and what isn't a morally or economically valid war.

If someone's flying a bling mission boat, he deserves to be decced.

If someone doesn't play Eve properly by highsec mining and missioning instead of doing some form of PvP (like trading and pew-pew), he deserves to be decced.

If someone has more ISK than me and I can get him to spread the wealth, he deserves to be decced.

Of course, whether he "deserves to be decced" or not is irrelevant: Eve is supposed to be a sandbox MMO and allowing wealthy players (or any player) to opt out of PvP because they're more wealthy than their attackers is contrary to that notion.

Red Raider
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.07.06 20:11:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Slimy Worm
Edited by: Slimy Worm on 06/07/2010 19:31:21
CCP has no right to eliminate wars based on what is and what isn't a morally or economically valid war.

If someone's flying a bling mission boat, he deserves to be decced.

If someone doesn't play Eve properly by mining and missioning instead of doing some form of PvP (like trading and pew-pew), he deserves to be decced.

If someone has more ISK than me and I can get him to spread the wealth, he deserves to be decced.

Of course, whether he "deserves to be decced" or not is irrelevant: Eve is supposed to be a sandbox MMO and allowing wealthy players (or any player) to opt out of PvP because they're more wealthy than their attackers is contrary to that notion.


Another wonderful example of "if you don't play my way you are playing it wrong".

With logic like this no wonder the game is half broken.

Ahsekuaw
Brother Theo's Monastery
The Ancients.
Posted - 2010.07.07 03:46:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Ahsekuaw on 07/07/2010 03:46:41
The war dec mechanic does need some lovin. This isn't it. Not even close.

Not supported.

Ahs

ihcn
Posted - 2010.07.07 06:22:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Red Raider
Originally by: Slimy Worm
Edited by: Slimy Worm on 06/07/2010 19:31:21
CCP has no right to eliminate wars based on what is and what isn't a morally or economically valid war.

If someone's flying a bling mission boat, he deserves to be decced.

If someone doesn't play Eve properly by mining and missioning instead of doing some form of PvP (like trading and pew-pew), he deserves to be decced.

If someone has more ISK than me and I can get him to spread the wealth, he deserves to be decced.

Of course, whether he "deserves to be decced" or not is irrelevant: Eve is supposed to be a sandbox MMO and allowing wealthy players (or any player) to opt out of PvP because they're more wealthy than their attackers is contrary to that notion.


Another wonderful example of "if you don't play my way you are playing it wrong".

With logic like this no wonder the game is half broken.


Bad news: The entire game is designed around nobody being immune to pvp. "his way" is ccp's way. By letting rich players pay their way out of any and all pvp, you have now created a group of people that is immune to pvp, and that opens up a slippery slope of people complaining about haves vs. have notes, and before you know it they'll have to make miners and mission runners safe too.

Face it, this is a pvp game. If you don't like it, give me your stuff then quit.

Bunyip
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2010.07.07 17:05:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: ihcn
Bad news: The entire game is designed around nobody being immune to pvp. "his way" is ccp's way. By letting rich players pay their way out of any and all pvp, you have now created a group of people that is immune to pvp, and that opens up a slippery slope of people complaining about haves vs. have notes, and before you know it they'll have to make miners and mission runners safe too.

Face it, this is a pvp game. If you don't like it, give me your stuff then quit.


Umm, this isn't a PvP game. This isn't a PvE game either. It's a game based around the delicate balance (one group creates supply, one group creates demand). It's a complex marketing simulation.

That said, I'm not sure whether this idea would be successful, but it seems to be the best solution posited so far to fix what is a broken mechanic. I have been on the receiving end of wardecs with some of my alts, and it's no fun, and too cheap (I can make enough ISK to fund a wardec against an entire alliance for a month with just two hours of mission running).

Wardecs are perhaps the main reason why there are so many people in NPC corps, even with the 11% tax rate they recently introduced. Wardecs are in need of an overhaul, alongside other issues with the corporation (UI, POSes, roles, etc).

I have read a lot of whining about ISK sinks, and some of them are valid, but it doesn't counter the original argument. If this is not the right solution, please propose one which would fix it.

Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2010.07.07 18:02:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Mr SmartGuy
Terrible idea. This would not change the highsec wars - this would eliminate them.


No this would only ensure they are waged against poor people, aka noobs. Stupid doesn't even start to describe this idea.

Saelie
Posted - 2010.07.07 18:44:00 - [17]
 

Interpretation of OP:
"I'm a high-sec carebear with more money than sense. I angered someone dangerous and they wardecced me. Why can't I just throw money at the problem and make it go away?"

I'm a high-sec carebear that fears wardecs and even I think this is a stupid idea. If you want to throw money at a war in hopes that it goes away, hire some mercs or go out there and do the fighting yourself.

Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2010.07.07 19:27:00 - [18]
 

Large merc / griefer corp wardecs a smaller one, who can't pay up anyway - wouldn't change a bit.

A smaller corp seriously trying to take on a slightly larger one, for example denying them highsec mining or easy access to trade hubs - they would just get outbid. This would lose any point.

Not supported.




(PAY to shoot at each other? Who would ever want to live in that "highsec" you speak about?)

Brutus B
Posted - 2010.07.08 05:28:00 - [19]
 

I don't like this idea. I don't see anyway to make it good either, except to say it's just bad. Many people have given good reasons as to why it's bad.

But heres an idea, join an alliance and raise the cost of the wardec considerably. If they really want to wardec your alliance, they will.

Here's another idea, beg for mercy? pay them the isk as a sign of surrender, and actually surrender to the wardec? Basically, current game mechanics already allow you to counter-bid the war by pleading for peace. Will doing so entertain your enemies, probably, but if you're outgunned the options you have are: 1-make a stand and get blown up. 2-hide in stations. 3-run to the otherside of the unvierse. 4-cloak-up. 5-pay for mercenaries to fight with/or for you. 6-diplo the other corp for terms of surrender. 7-Close your corp form a new one. 8-Join an alliance to make war against you more costly.

Over all, there's so many evasive options that waging an effective war against another corp is pretty challenging as it is. So, I absolutely do not support this idea.

Guy LeDuche
Posted - 2010.07.08 14:52:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Guy LeDuche on 08/07/2010 15:04:35
Originally by: Brutus B
I don't like this idea. I don't see anyway to make it good either, except to say it's just bad. Many people have given good reasons as to why it's bad.

But heres an idea, join an alliance and raise the cost of the wardec considerably. If they really want to wardec your alliance, they will.

Here's another idea, beg for mercy? pay them the isk as a sign of surrender, and actually surrender to the wardec? Basically, current game mechanics already allow you to counter-bid the war by pleading for peace. Will doing so entertain your enemies, probably, but if you're outgunned the options you have are: 1-make a stand and get blown up. 2-hide in stations. 3-run to the otherside of the unvierse. 4-cloak-up. 5-pay for mercenaries to fight with/or for you. 6-diplo the other corp for terms of surrender. 7-Close your corp form a new one. 8-Join an alliance to make war against you more costly.

Over all, there's so many evasive options that waging an effective war against another corp is pretty challenging as it is. So, I absolutely do not support this idea.


25 mil for alliance dec is nothing. Joining mid dec will just give the deccer more targets for even less isk. Join an alliance in itself does not help.

If you pay anything to anyone, you'll have an endless stream of decs from others who want to get paid. It make things worse.

1)Get blown up attract kb padders. You'll end up with endless stream of decs.
2)Hide in station denies your access to game, while still paying monthly subscription. You may as well cancel your subscription.
3)Leaving everything behind and running denies your access to game. Highsec isn't large, they may chase after you. POS can't run.
4)Can't do anything when cloaked. Denies access to game, may as well unsubscribe.
5)Paying mercs don't cancel out current wardec. Your hulk can't fight.
6)Terms are isk, or popping certain number of ships for kb padding, both of which attract endless wardecs.
7)Killing the patient is not a cure.
8)Again, 25mil is still chump change.

You've just illustrated everything that's broken about current wardec mechanics.

CCP should never have lowered highsec wardec costs. It's too easily exploited, and need to be reversed.


 

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