open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked Change cost of Wardec to an amount that is more significant to a corp
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Squeakee Bunny
Posted - 2011.01.02 15:16:00 - [1]
 

The current cost of a wardec is apparently 50m isk per week. To a corp/alliance that is pocket change. This amount should be changed to be 500m isk so that it is a cost that a corp/alliance would think about twice and wouldn't just use the wardec as a griefing opportunity.

Naga Tokiba
Posted - 2011.01.02 15:40:00 - [2]
 


Zynnis AtManath
Caldari
Posted - 2011.01.02 15:55:00 - [3]
 

50 mil to me is a fair price.

Getting out of wardecs is easy.

24 hrs to wardec
=
24 hrs to set new CEO
=
24 hrs to get all members out
=
24 hrs to get into a new corp
=
Whats the point of wardecs anyways?

Jada Maroo
Posted - 2011.01.02 16:49:00 - [4]
 

There really needs to be a defined goal to wardecs. As it is, they are little more than bribing Concord to look away.

Blood Anarchist
Posted - 2011.01.02 17:02:00 - [5]
 

wardecs are a bribe to concord. bribes happen in real life, just like they do in eve, lol. that is the nature of this game.

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
Posted - 2011.01.02 17:20:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Jada Maroo
There really needs to be a defined goal to wardecs. As it is, they are little more than bribing Concord to look away.


No there doesn't and they are bribes of a sort. You can limit your wardecs to any reasons you want, but CCP shouldn't start to dictate what reasons are or aren't good enough for a wardec. At best you could argue for a system where the target has a chance to bid against the wardeccing corp for continued CONCORD protection.

Rip Minner
Gallente
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
Posted - 2011.01.03 04:51:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
Originally by: Jada Maroo
There really needs to be a defined goal to wardecs. As it is, they are little more than bribing Concord to look away.


No there doesn't and they are bribes of a sort. You can limit your wardecs to any reasons you want, but CCP shouldn't start to dictate what reasons are or aren't good enough for a wardec. At best you could argue for a system where the target has a chance to bid against the wardeccing corp for continued CONCORD protection.


This is the only posable improvement to wardecs. And another fine isk sink too I thinkTwisted Evil

Corian Teranos
Caldari
Joint Espionage and Defence Industries
Preatoriani
Posted - 2011.01.03 17:36:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Corian Teranos on 03/01/2011 17:40:42
Edited by: Corian Teranos on 03/01/2011 17:37:23
i used to be in a small corperation called RMT research and mining was all we did. politically nutral and since we bought most of the ore from the market we neither made friends or enemies. that didn't stop a random greifing corp from deccing us 3 seperate times but i will not point finger. i am all for raising the wardec price war deccing is somthing that really should only be used as a tool to harrass competing supply lines in highsec durring a long term territory war. and not as a tool for random violance. pirates should move out to low sec where they belong.

wardeccers are carebears of piracy they are like the highschool gangsta's who want to push the little kids around the playground and act all tough but are too scared to set foot on the streets where the real gangs roam for fear of stepping on someone's toes

mchief117
Posted - 2011.01.03 20:55:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Blood Anarchist
wardecs are a bribe to concord. bribes happen in real life, just like they do in eve, lol. that is the nature of this game.


yes but how often do you bribe some one , not pay them and then have absolutly nothing come of it. atm most decing that i have seen is a corp declares the dec fights for one or two days, then fails to pay concord and the wardeck is invalidated. i mean the shady guy at concord ant to smart about taking the bribes is he

Chekov Nikahd
Amarr
Posted - 2011.01.03 23:23:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Chekov Nikahd on 03/01/2011 23:23:06
Edited by: Chekov Nikahd on 03/01/2011 23:22:54
Support this

It would help make some of the ganking corps actually think a little bit before wardeccing another corporation. As it is right now, they just wardec whoever, whenever, because the cost is so low. Couple guys can make 50m isk in an hour, nevermind a week!

Personally though, I think the price should scale, although by what metrics I'm not sure.

Perhaps the best option would be some kind of bidding system? Where the wardeccing corporation pays say, 50 million for a week, and then the wardecced corp can cancel it immediately for 50% cost - 25m, then the wardeccing corp can try and push the wardec again, paying say 100m, and continue as such until someone decides that they don't have enough money to push that wardec through.

Perhaps have a "buyout" price set at something very large, like a few billion isk that guarantees the aggressor a week of combat.

On the plus side, it could also end up being a massive money sink for the economy, as all this cash just disappears down concord's gaping maw.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.03 23:42:00 - [11]
 

My experience in EVE show that corp/alliance leaders are very reluctant to start empire wars. Even the hardcore PvP alliances like IT never bother with empire wars.

To me that's untapped potential. We need to do something to encourage more wars, not less. We need more PvP in empire.

Chekov Nikahd
Amarr
Posted - 2011.01.03 23:50:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
My experience in EVE show that corp/alliance leaders are very reluctant to start empire wars. Even the hardcore PvP alliances like IT never bother with empire wars.

To me that's untapped potential. We need to do something to encourage more wars, not less. We need more PvP in empire.

Faction warfare

What you seem to be advocating - gankers killing carebears in high sec - that can barely be considered PVP as it is. Yeah, shooting a bunch of targets who can't fight back, that's really impressive right there. These gankers are just carebear pirates who can't or won't hack it in low/null sec. I certainly wouldn't miss them.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.04 00:06:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Chekov Nikahd
Faction warfare

What you seem to be advocating - gankers killing carebears in high sec - that can barely be considered PVP as it is. Yeah, shooting a bunch of targets who can't fight back, that's really impressive right there. These gankers are just carebear pirates who can't or won't hack it in low/null sec. I certainly wouldn't miss them.
Everyone can fight back. Just cause the carebears choose not to fight, it's their own fault, not the other side's.

And carebears have it way too easy in EVE, they grow fat and lazy, and we need to cull their herds a bit to keep their population healthy.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.01.04 00:19:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
My experience in EVE show that corp/alliance leaders are very reluctant to start empire wars. Even the hardcore PvP alliances like IT never bother with empire wars...

Why should they, the only presence they have is probably alts to move stuff around and make a little ISK on the side.

Most high-sec wars (read: grief wars) are not PvP, closer to PvE for all intents and purposes.
Experienced and properly skilled vs. inexperienced with marginal (relevant) skills .. would you volunteer to twelve rounds with a pro boxer?

The system is pretty bad, but I have no idea what could/should replace it.
Perhaps a corp wide sec hit if a war is concluded without any combat ship kills (ie. not haulers, shuttles and the like) .. grief would be griefers for trying to run down pedestrians Very Happy

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.04 00:36:00 - [15]
 

Quote:
Why should they, the only presence they have is probably alts to move stuff around and make a little ISK on the side.
The fact that they feel necessary to limit their open presence in empire and resort to alts only proves how reluctant they are to PvP in empire.

People who like to PvP shouldn't hide behind alts in empire. It's carebearish.
Personally I don't like the whole alts thing. And I really don't like how extremely safe 0.0 alliance transports have become. In 0.0 it's all jump bridges and cyno jumps, in empire it's all alts.

Half the fun in military battles is destroying your enemy supply fleet. And how come EVE is like the only military game where there is no need for escort duty?

I just think we are missing out on some great gameplay here. We had some of it before CCP introduced jump bridges and cynos.

Chekov Nikahd
Amarr
Posted - 2011.01.04 09:29:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
Everyone can fight back. Just cause the carebears choose not to fight, it's their own fault, not the other side's.

And carebears have it way too easy in EVE, they grow fat and lazy, and we need to cull their herds a bit to keep their population healthy.

So basically, you don't care about a good fight. I mean, the parallel here is pretty obvious, you're telling us that it's a good thing to have self-congratulatory bullies punching kindergartners in the face, and that you want MORE of them.

If you want more PVP in high-sec, there's faction warfare just sitting there waiting for you. But hey, that actually requires FIGHTING. The carebear PVP'ers, who just sit in highsec and gank others who cannot even possibly fight back, and then pat themselves on the back for it are a problem just like scamming is a problem.

Yes, go ahead and do it, I have no problem with that, but it shouldn't be so easy, never mind so profitable. I have absolutely no problem with CCP implementing some changes to make it harder for carebear PVP'ers to wardec noob corps in highsec.

But really, you're a hypocrite - you think those noob corps and haulers are a bunch of "fat and lazy" carebears, but you don't realize that these gankers are just as guilty. There's little more risk ganking people in highsec than there is running missions in highsec. Anyone against the "fat and lazy" really ought to be against the gankers too.

The fact that you aren't is the secret telling us where your priorities really lie.

Gallians
Posted - 2011.01.04 11:40:00 - [17]
 

Supported.

Right now the ost to wardecs is pocket change. It should be significantly higher.

Korg Leaf
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
0ccupational Hazzard
Posted - 2011.01.04 12:00:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Squeakee Bunny
The current cost of a wardec is apparently 50m isk per week. To a corp/alliance that is pocket change. This amount should be changed to be 500m isk so that it is a cost that a corp/alliance would think about twice and wouldn't just use the wardec as a griefing opportunity.


i think 500m is a bit steep for deccing a corp

Corian Teranos
Caldari
Joint Espionage and Defence Industries
Preatoriani
Posted - 2011.01.04 17:38:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Corian Teranos on 04/01/2011 17:38:43
Originally by: Ephemeron
My experience in EVE show that corp/alliance leaders are very reluctant to start empire wars. Even the hardcore PvP alliances like IT never bother with empire wars.

To me that's untapped potential. We need to do something to encourage more wars, not less. We need more PvP in empire.


i agree that there needs to be more high sec conflict but we arent talking about alliance wars we are talking about small pvp corps randomly deccing small corperations for the sole purpose of high sec piracy. that isn't war that is greifing. but i would love to see some of the null alliances holding fleet battles in empire space. could become a specator sport watching large fleet battles witout worrying about getting ganked on your way to null or hit by stray fire

Vheri Kai'or
Posted - 2011.01.04 20:44:00 - [20]
 

y'all dont seem to get that the wardec mechanic is working as intended. eve isnt s'posed to be a place you can afk mine 23.5/7 with impunity, it is supposed to be a place where your **** will get blown up by some ***got if you are stupid.

i mean christ i learnt that about 2 weeks in when i was doing a courier mission in a rifter and got ganked in low sec.


hell-ive never pirated, but i am still loving these tears...you see the thing is these pirates/high sec war-deccers have tried mining, theyve tried no-sec and so on. theyve found what they have fun doing. do you have the right to take that from them, any more than they have the right to take your precious little hulk from you? no they dont, and yet yes they do.

but hey-ho, ive got a solution to your problems.

dont look upon the people you mine with as a resource to make your isk making easier. talk with them, get to know them, then get a few rifters and try doing something other than watching your hold's fill for once.

or hell, for something really whacky, watch local. or be at the keyboard. or both. that works well.

Corian Teranos
Caldari
Joint Espionage and Defence Industries
Preatoriani
Posted - 2011.01.04 21:41:00 - [21]
 

there is a really good tactic that works against ganking and is pretty fun you fit a hulk with a massive tank and remove the strips alltogether and than you have a fleet of stealth bombers floating around somewhere. surprise the hulk doesent pop and surprise your corp gets the kill before concord even shows up

V'hellu
Caldari
Posted - 2011.01.05 08:58:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: V''hellu on 05/01/2011 08:58:45
Originally by: Ephemeron
Everyone can fight back. Just cause the carebears choose not to fight, it's their own fault, not the other side's.

And carebears have it way too easy in EVE, they grow fat and lazy, and we need to cull their herds a bit to keep their population healthy.


This is false. Many "carebear" corps in highsec are corps with mostly new or maybe 1-2 month old characters. From SP alone, they can't compete with the players who have been going on for years. It is funny to watch a carebear corp cascade out of a station, in T1 frigates no less, but it is important to remember that these are new players that need to learn the game, and not just be roflstomped out of existence in the very short time they've had to play the game, especially when they have absolutely no chance of even defending themselves in the least.

Griefing has it's place in Eve, but a certain delicate touch needs to be used when dealing with the carebear corps in highsec due to the reason mentioned above. However, I think 500 mil is a bit steep, so I would suggest something closer to 100 mil so that the much smaller corps will still have the option open.

Korg Leaf
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
0ccupational Hazzard
Posted - 2011.01.05 13:57:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: V'hellu
Edited by: V''hellu on 05/01/2011 08:58:45
Originally by: Ephemeron
Everyone can fight back. Just cause the carebears choose not to fight, it's their own fault, not the other side's.

And carebears have it way too easy in EVE, they grow fat and lazy, and we need to cull their herds a bit to keep their population healthy.


This is false. Many "carebear" corps in highsec are corps with mostly new or maybe 1-2 month old characters. From SP alone, they can't compete with the players who have been going on for years. It is funny to watch a carebear corp cascade out of a station, in T1 frigates no less, but it is important to remember that these are new players that need to learn the game, and not just be roflstomped out of existence in the very short time they've had to play the game, especially when they have absolutely no chance of even defending themselves in the least.

Griefing has it's place in Eve, but a certain delicate touch needs to be used when dealing with the carebear corps in highsec due to the reason mentioned above. However, I think 500 mil is a bit steep, so I would suggest something closer to 100 mil so that the much smaller corps will still have the option open.


to be fair even 100mil is still a little steep for corp to corp war, most corps that dec regularly dec several corps at once, so what by the 5th corp you will be paying over bil in total

Wiki Leaks
Posted - 2011.01.05 15:16:00 - [24]
 

While it's instantly available to merely leave corp as required, and rejoin as desired, at no cost whatsoever, we should only ever be considering revising the price of wars downwards.

When the costs to avoid war start exceeding the cost to start them, then we can listen to what you have to say.

Goose99
Posted - 2011.01.05 19:35:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Squeakee Bunny
The current cost of a wardec is apparently 50m isk per week. To a corp/alliance that is pocket change. This amount should be changed to be 500m isk so that it is a cost that a corp/alliance would think about twice and wouldn't just use the wardec as a griefing opportunity.


Originally by: Zynnis AtManath
50 mil to me is a fair price.

Getting out of wardecs is easy.

24 hrs to wardec
=
24 hrs to set new CEO
=
24 hrs to get all members out
=
24 hrs to get into a new corp
=
Whats the point of wardecs anyways?


You got the number wrong. Wardeccing a noob highsec corp is only 2 mil. It's higher only if you dec large alliances or have multiple decs going at once. 2 mil is chump change by anyone's standards.

If it had been 50 mils to dec a corp, it would still be on the low side, but considering increases from multiple decs, it may be enough to deter dec spamming highsec noob corps for the purpose of kb-padding. As it is now, anyone can just go shoot a rat to finance a wardec.Rolling Eyes

Okie Wren
Posted - 2011.01.05 22:17:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Blood Anarchist
wardecs are a bribe to concord. bribes happen in real life, just like they do in eve, lol. that is the nature of this game.


Except that in EVE all concord officers are on the take, they're not even being covert about it!

Deperem Mac
Amarr
Amarr Space Purification
Posted - 2011.01.06 00:32:00 - [27]
 

Heck, no to the OP. If anything must be done, I would like the cost lowered significantly for increased warfare capability for smaller corps. As it is, I have to keep my main busy to feed my pew-pewing alts wallets. 50 million ISK means just too much precious time spent in the sewer of missioning/ninja/salvaging, just to make ISK to have fun. And even then, most of those gooey carebears just dock up for the duration. So that 50 million might just go to waste anyway. But it's probably safest to keep things the way they are. With no one completely happy, and no one completely miserable, you've probably got a good compromise.Cool

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.06 00:44:00 - [28]
 

How about this:

When you declare war dec, pay the cost, you get to shoot THEM but they can't shoot YOU until you aggro. Kinda like can flipping mechanic.

And if THEY want to shoot you, they also pay the war cost, or they declare war mutual and neither of you pay anything.

That sounds a lot more fair in terms of costs.

Goose99
Posted - 2011.01.06 03:30:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Deperem Mac
Heck, no to the OP. If anything must be done, I would like the cost lowered significantly for increased warfare capability for smaller corps. As it is, I have to keep my main busy to feed my pew-pewing alts wallets. 50 million ISK means just too much precious time spent in the sewer of missioning/ninja/salvaging, just to make ISK to have fun. And even then, most of those gooey carebears just dock up for the duration. So that 50 million might just go to waste anyway. But it's probably safest to keep things the way they are. With no one completely happy, and no one completely miserable, you've probably got a good compromise.Cool


If you meant the current 2 mil fee to dec a corp should be increased to 50 mil, then I agree.Razz

CommanderData211
Posted - 2011.01.06 08:19:00 - [30]
 

On the issue of relevance, high-sec wardec's have none. I agree completely that they cost way too little money. This is not to say that I want the price of wardec's to increase to such a degree that they become completely infeasible, but 2 million to wardec a corporation is kind of ridiculous. The reason that it is ridiculous though is because there is very minimal risk involved.

Take a large 0.0 campaign for example. Even though there is no mechanic in place to facilitate the campaign, weeks and sometimes months are spent in the planning and execution of them. Alliances and coalitions plan out cost effectiveness VS. risk involved. For the high-sec wardecing corporation, the cost of initiating, what we can laughably call a war, should represent a modicum of intent to begin some sort of meaningful campaign, instead of "I just want to shoot things now".

Plain and simple, if you raise the cost it takes to wardec an entity, the wardeccer will think harder about doing so. They will have to research their opponent (not to say they don't now) and determine whether or not there is some relevance behind what they are about to do.

Yet again I must stress, I don't want to see PVP come to a grinding halt in empire, I just think that people should have to think more critically about declaring "war".


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