Nothing ever burns down by itself
You make a good point there.
I don't think the numbers system works on either side, question is how (if at all) do you factor in numbers in cost either in allies or originating dec cost?
For example, having 9000 members doesn't necessarily mean you have 9000 rabid PvP nuts ready and waiting to fight. Statistically it probably means you have considerably more than someone with, say, 100 - but without being able to easily quantify that in terms of what it means for costs and allies I don't really know what the solution is. The whole "adding as many allies until you hit the 9000 cap" thing is just two wrongs trying to make a right though /o\
There is also some exposure risk in an entity with 9000 members in deccing anyone much smaller (nimbler), as that 9b hauler killmail attests to.
You can really get into the meat of something like this without really getting very far in solving the problem. You could, for example, devise a system that measures "combat efficiency" either through the number of SP someone has in "combat" skills, together with their K/D ratio, and determine costs based on that. For example, Genos - being a small corp, ought to have a higher cost in deccing someone/being drafted in as an ally than a corp full of 200 useless noobs simply because statistically all of their members are probably above-average in PvP competency.
Quite honestly though there's flaws to be found in all suggestions.
Last edited by Durzel; June 26 2012 at 01:08:48 PM.
Understood. That's why I prefaced that term with with 'obligatory'. However, they're not 'utterly pointless'. Games are modeled on real-world mechanics, and only diverge from those mechanics for good reason. In the Real World, it can be expected that if I fall off a 100-foot cliff onto sharp rocks that I'll die. It would tend to be the same in a game simply because players must have a frame of reference for the rules of that world.
I'm on the fence with your point here. You've got me wavering. What you said above does seem a bit harsh to me, even for Eve. But a character who tires of never being safe anywhere could always leave his corporation and join another? Or even an NPC corporation? Is that still an option? If so, would that not represent a way out?Realistically when we're talking about a game not many people will suffer being in constant peril all of the time in space that is for everyone else "safe". Some people relish it, but highsec is ultimately somewhere that permits transient wars rather than a system whereby one wrong dec could mean you can never practically play casually again.
So stop bringing the argument of what is really the "fighting capable" number of members in a corp.
If 1 vs 5000 costs 500 million ISK then 5000 vs 1 should cost 500 million ISK. It should be trivial for the 5000 to gather up the 500 million ISK but they'll probably be paying more ISK than they destroy against a much smaller target.
I'd also say that if you have anyone offensively wardecced then any wardecs against you cost half (or lower pricing by a tier). It removes some of the ISK-shield potential of groups willing to use the wardec mechanics and gives some more space for hiring mercs to counterattack. It also offers some ISK incentive to target people who at least have some form of combat arm and willingness to fight in high sec.
Consider those both general changes that could help in both the extreme cases as well as the more mundane.
When I first read about this issue I supported Jade. The more and more he writes about the whole war dek thing the less I'm inclined to side with him. I don't know what it is about his posts, but each one I read makes me hate him a little bit more.
It's a fever that passes quickly
Happy to see Jade and the Fractionites are still finding empires to defy!
Star Fraction are my favourite alliance with a very obvious typo in their name.
Them and Pandemic Legume.
seriously people, as plutionian said, either pick the "fair and balance" or the "brutal and cruel" side of the coin.
And as i've said many times, the actual price of the war-dec should be a mathematic formula that takes into consideration the ammount of people in the aggressor party vs the ammount of people in the victim party (including allies).
Mutual wars should be open to allies, not allowing that is just plain keeping the "pay to grief" goal of the wardec mechanic.
EVE does seem to be moving towards using various statuses and metrics to tweak game play on the fly... take FW for example and LP payouts for the value of ships killed. Things like that seem to indicate a willingness on CCP's part to move mechanics away from static parameters (before this change, a given ship class had a LP payout that never changed) and towards ways to alter How Things Are based on player activity.
Taking that thought into the wardec realm, one metric that could be used is if the defender or offender holds sov. I suggest this because the ability to hold sov is a reasonable watermark for the visibility and perhaps the activity of a entity, and I assert that if you're able to maintain sovereignty somewhere, then you're putting yourself in a class of entity that is more visible and capable than a 200-man empire-based mission running/mining alliance.
So with that, if you're a sov-holding alliance with members filling your coffers with goo and anomaly bounties, and you initiate a dec against a non-sov-holding corp or alliance, then perhaps the defender could or should be able to call for additional support in the form of allies without breaking the bank on CONCORD ally fees.
So can someone clearly outline what the previous system was, and what they've changed it to?
"He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Tor. Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"
(Though I can't find the EVE-O thread I was thinking of where people were talking about it now. There's some discussion of it here, but the thread does gets confused with the whole "forever war" issue, and branches multiple directions...)