These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

EVE Information Portal

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page

New dev blog: Changes to War Mechanics

First post First post
CCP Guard
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2012-03-29 14:11:17 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Navigator
CCP SoniClover and his Super Friends are looking to spice things up with changes to the war mechanics. Please read through the blog right here, let us know what you think and fire away any question you think of. We're eager for feedback.

CCP Guard | EVE Community Developer | @CCP_Guard

Tir Capital Management Group
#2 - 2012-03-29 14:14:50 UTC


Where I am.

#3 - 2012-03-29 14:18:47 UTC  |  Edited by: gfldex
Yay for lowsec boost! \o/

EDIT: After thinking a while about the changes it seams to me that we are moving back a few years before we got ingame alliances and then start improving the wardec system from that point.

It may be worth a thought what would happen if alliances are taken out of the wardec system all together.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.

Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#4 - 2012-03-29 14:21:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Denmark
Being a former hi-sec warmonger for a few years myself I got the best out of the current system engaging corporations and alliances outnumbering ourselves in numbers, but not in skils and assets. It was a blast and until people started training their falcon alts into logistic alts it was a good time...

The price being calculated only against the target size is only fair the moment all corporations pay an upkeep tax for their members. Or you will see corporations and alliances stuffing their pilot roosters with alts!! Being big should NOT be an advantage... I would highly suggest discounts for being underdogs - Half price if target has more than twice your numbers? Double price if target has less than half your numbers? Sounds fun and fair to me...

How about allowing agressing corporations the chance to hire in mercs? Obviously agressors can declare war on their own, however if you have a great public score chart why not allow mercs on agressors side to take part in that?

Ending a war only with isk? Utilize the contracts code and allow people to throw in some items... Apart from the honest fights (we didn't use neutral RR and neither did our enemies) the most memorable treasure we got in my corporation was a deal getting 6 HACs. Little value in isk, however it was fun and gave us something to remember.

Mutual wars / Counterdeclarations:
In my opinion it should very well be possible to counter declare. The declaration cost should be calculated in the same way as the other wars. If the agressor then retracts the war the roles will have turned and wardec will continue to be active as long the new agressor pays the fee. It would be a great roleplay to reverse roles on an agressor to force them fighting on or admit defeat paying a ransom...

1/ How long waiting time from a war is declared? 24h? 48h?
2/ Edited out...
3/ How will you attempt to make "Red vs Blue" happy? Do you want them to move to lowsec/nullsec?
4/ What prices are you contemplating (I know nothing is set in stone)
5/ Will you attempt to promote people to move fighting away from stations in any way?
6/ Are you working with team Crimflag about docking times and making sure neutral assists will carry over agression so they cannot dock up at will?
7/ Will the payment of mercs be automatic or manual? With mercs being tied into a war they might be screwed over by their employer which IMO is fine, but something to think about.
8/ Will the price to continue a war become bigger when defender is bringing in more numbers from mercs?

#5 - 2012-03-29 14:21:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Zi'Boo
Nice blog and nice changes...

However, you may want to work up on your killmail system, as it's showing different modules on the fitting window vs what's listed.
Or maybe you've decided to make salvager and tractor beam look like neuts and projectile rigs now look like armor rigs P

Vargur also doesn't cost 86 mil, doesn't have 6 turrets, 3 rig slots and 8/5/6 slot layout and it looks slightly different than a tempest Smile
Hiram Alexander
State Reprisal
#6 - 2012-03-29 14:23:21 UTC
Yay, it's back up...

From GD...

A vanishing Dev Blog wrote:
Q: War dec cost, target corp member modifier
A: The war dec cost formula will not take aggressor size into account and will not count trial account members in target corp. But the formula is constantly being revised, so nothing is set in stone.

Although trial accounts won't be counted towards the costs, I still want to know if ~inactive~ accounts will be factored in..

And in regard to the killmails...
A vanishing Dev Blog wrote:
To get this to work properly, we’ve (with help from Game of Drones) added everything to the market and fixed a few items that didn’t have a price (like Titans), with the price being based on material ingredients.

If I kill something with a mineral cost of 1bil, and go back to view that mail after a while (say, after that periodical measurement-change is made for insurance costs, etc.) is it possible that the kill will now be valued at, say, 1.5bil - or in other words, will the price be hard-wired into the mail itself, or dynamically generated at 'view'...?
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-03-29 14:23:58 UTC
I like how the killmails show the coords in space where the person was killed :3
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
#8 - 2012-03-29 14:25:14 UTC
Ah, here it is, great :)

I too love the killmails :D

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {



Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#9 - 2012-03-29 14:26:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Chribba
War!! Ohnoes!

That killmail window with save fittings is pretty handy when getting ganked without having saved your fit. Really nice.
It is pretty similar to a killboard... will there be some sort of this for in-game use, searchable and whatnot?

Also the war reports looks pretty neat!


★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar

Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#10 - 2012-03-29 14:27:54 UTC
Are you not afraid the listing of prices will confuse, annoy and frustrate people when the real prices are so far from the in-game generated materialprices?

#11 - 2012-03-29 14:29:30 UTC
Q: War dec cost, target corp member modifier?
A: The war dec cost formula will not take aggressor size into account and will not count trial account members in target corp. But the formula is constantly being revised, so nothing is set in stone.

I don't like the idea that it is easy for a large party to wardec a lot of small corporations just because there member count is very low.
Also the cost should be caped somewhere to limit the max cost of a war dec.

Wouldn't it make more sense to look at the size difference?
The one man corp declaring war on a thousands is just annoying and if he couldn't doc up safe in station he would never do such stupidity. The other way around having a large highsec war corp target a small industrial corp will be cheap and they have for mercs to have a chance. Thus they pay for the enjoyment of the wardecing corp just twice. First because they can't do their business and second the mercs who will fight for them.

But i like the idea of hire mercs do defend. maybe some will do it for free just to enjoy the fun of pvp. The Formula however should aim for equal forces to make it enjoyable for both sides.
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
Joint Venture Conglomerate
#12 - 2012-03-29 14:29:41 UTC
This lists clearly all losses on both sides in the war. To get this to work properly, we’ve (with help from team Game of Drones) added everything to the market and fixed a few items that didn’t have a price (like Titans), with the price being based on material ingredients

How will you be handling BPC values?

Fear God and Thread Nought

Dierdra Vaal
Interstellar Stargate Syndicate
#13 - 2012-03-29 14:29:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Dierdra Vaal
the same goes for the aggressor - entering a war is now more of a commitment and not something you can hop in and out of at a whim's notice.

While I applaud changes to the broken war dec mechanics, the above quote shows CCP still does not quite understand the reality of (some) wars in Eve. The proposed changes are a halfway fix at best, and only change part of what is wrong. As a result, this system might actually result in a worse player experience than the current system. I feel that it does not do enough to change it from a griefing tool into a tool to resolve inter-corp disputes through military means. If, of course, CCP intended for wardecs to simply be a griefing tool I would prefer that they state this clearly.

The main issue I see with this is that you're now effectively locking corps and alliances into a war, even if they do not enjoy playing like this, without giving them an effective way to get out of it. "Oh but you can fight back, even get your friends to help out!" you might say, but this is not always effective. Sure you can fight back, but there is no guarantee that that will end the war (even with help from your friends). Especially when plenty of high sec wardeccing corps are made of up alts, who can easily 'escape' to their mains to play elsewhere, or consist of players who specifically seek out pvp. As defender, you're essentially resigned to waiting (hoping) for the aggressor to get bored of the war.

Now I do admit the ease of getting out of wars currently is a big issue, one only justified by the broken system we currently have. But forcing players into a war they didn't chose should come with an ability for the defender to take control of the wardec, and giving them the direct ability to end the war and enforce a temporary peace.

Not only will this give corporations a real reason to fight (on both sides of the war), rather than sit in stations or AFK cloak in local, it will also give a real incentive to use mercenaries. Afterall, if your own forces or your hired guns are effective, YOU take control of the war completely.

As such I'd suggest the following changes/additions to the system proposed in the devblog:
1) The attacking corp/alliance starts with an 'ISK deficit' equal to the cost of the wardec.
2) In order to keep control of the wardec, they need to inflict at least that much damage on their target corp/alliance (and any friends they might have). ISK damage is already being tracked in the new War Reports.
3) At the end of each war week, when the new bill is due, the system evaluates if the attacking corp is ahead on ISK damage and if they met or exceeded their ISK deficit. If so they keep control of the war. If not, control of the war transfers to the target corp/alliance, who then effectively become the attacker. They can decide to renew the war (and pay the fee), or cancel it.
4) Any wars that are not renewed are followed by a period of peace between the two entities equal to the length of the war.

This change would still allow people to fight unilateral wars, it will still allow people to take down high sec posses and still allow them to beat their enemies into submission. But it will also allow corporations who are being attacked to fight back and give them a chance to end the war they were forced in to, turning a griefing mechanic into a more balanced tool to resolve inter-corp conflicts. And as a big added bonus, it's a much better incentive for mercenary gameplay because 'winning' a war means taking control!

Overall it makes the wardec system a lot more dynamic and interesting.

Joining as an ally is a formal contract and can involve transfer of ISK. Once you’re an ally, you’re committed to the war until it ends.

This, combined with the fact that you’re dependent on the aggressor getting bored of the war, means some mercenary corps might find themselves stuck in a war/contract for much longer than they planned, with no way of getting out. This in turn will lead to less corps going the mercenary route. Better would be that merc corps take on one week, or otherwise time limited, contracts?

Q: War dec cost, target corp member modifier?
A: The war dec cost formula will not take aggressor size into account and will not count trial account members in target corp. But the formula is constantly being revised, so nothing is set in stone.

This formula has to take into account only active accounts. It is far, far too easy to fill up a corp with inactive non-trial accounts.

Veto #205

Director Emeritus at EVE University

CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman

Evesterdam organiser and CSM Vote Match founder

Co-Author of the Galactic Party Planning Guide

The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-03-29 14:31:04 UTC
Revealing the exact location in a solar system of a kill could be revealing vital intel, such as safespot locations etc.

It might be a bit intrusive to some
Blue Harrier
#15 - 2012-03-29 14:32:20 UTC
A question;

You say corporation A can declare war on corporation B and B can ask for assistance from corporation C.

So if C is a friend of A is there anything in place to prevent C from turning on B (who either hired them or asked for their help), and annihilating B from within so to speak?

"You wait - time passes, Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold." from The Hobbit on ZX Spectrum 1982.

Ms Twitch
Skunkwerx Manufacturing
#16 - 2012-03-29 14:32:21 UTC
I like the idea of removing trial accounts, but I too worry about corps filling with noob alts. What about make it that the count is on players who have been active in the last x days?

Otherwise I love the changes :)
Kata Amentis
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2012-03-29 14:35:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Kata Amentis
Devblog wrote:
Q: A declares war on B. B enlists help of ally C. Can A now bring in D? Or is this option only limited to the defender? And if A brings in D, is D at war with A and C, or just C?
A: Only the defender can call an ally. There is no limitation to how many allies he can call. The ally counts as being at war with the aggressor corp.

I think the question was aim at the following situation and the answer given doesn't shed any light on it:

corp A declares on corp B

corp B calls in ally C

A can now shoot B and C, B and C can shoot A

(so far basic war dec/ally mechanic)

totally seperate corp D decides to declare on corp B (not an "ally call" by way of the mechanic, just getting you mates to throw another wardec).

what is corp C (the ally in the first war) relationship to corp D (the aggressor in the second war)? are they at war with each other?

another example situation of the same question:

corp X has been war dec'd by corp Y and corp Z, corp W is thinking about being corp X's Ally. Can they chose to only fight corp Y or corp Z? or do they get both wars?

in other words; when allying, are you linked to a specific wardec, or are you linked to the defending corp and all their wardecs, present and future?

It makes quite a difference between an Ally getting into a fight with one corp, and an ally getting into a fight with any corp that declares war on their friend, and that difference will influence the decision to ally or not.

Curiosity killed the Kata... ... but being immortal he wasn't too worried about keeping a count.

CCP Punkturis
C C P Alliance
#18 - 2012-03-29 14:37:32 UTC
Zi'Boo wrote:
Nice blog and nice changes...

However, you may want to work up on your killmail system, as it's showing different modules on the fitting window vs what's listed.
Or maybe you've decided to make salvager and tractor beam look like neuts and projectile rigs now look like armor rigs P

Vargur also doesn't cost 86 mil, doesn't have 6 turrets, 3 rig slots and 8/5/6 slot layout and it looks slightly different than a tempest Smile

this is just a mockup made by a UI designer. it's not a final version of how everything will look (we're still iterating on it and we've actually changed it a bit already since this is a version we used at Fanfest) and I'll try my best to make the data correct when I implement it Blink

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis

Arkady Sadik
Electus Matari
#19 - 2012-03-29 14:40:07 UTC
Adding an "official" way to measure war dec efficiency and success is problematic. Not everything is about ISK, and ISK has different values for different people. For some people, losing a 100m ship is peanuts. For others, that's devastating. Such a general measurement simply does away with these differences.

But more importantly, such a measurement can be gamed. Examples:

Two corps (A and B) dec corp C. C consistently wins fights, but as A and B cooperate, their separate wars will show only about half the losses they had combined, making it look as if C is losing both wars. This is bad.

Likewise, a common tactic right now is to use neutral RR. If you blow up ten neutral logistics but lose one cruiser in the fight, the war display will show you losing the war.

I'm not sure it's possible to have an "objective" display of war progress. Please reconsider if this is a useful feature.
Tir Capital Management Group
#20 - 2012-03-29 14:40:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
It really does look good gents!

There's two things I have to say at the moment - and I know you're going to tell me this might be down the road.

1. My basic point is that if you can make the objectives/goals of some of the wars to be tangible, then people have a reason to undock and fight or lose something if they don't.

i.e. "I am declaring war to close your office in the Dodixie System".

Now, this is a very rough concept to implement - but to me that is actually tangible. Should every war require that? No. But perhaps some can and will have a kind of objective system built into it. There's the challenge of how the objective is completed etc.

I'm also thinking about things such as Miners wanting to shoot other miners (As a merc, I get a surprising number of those based on anonymity). So, we go in and kick the miners out of their home system and harass them (not the breaking EULA kind of harassment- Crazy GMs), and then they can end the war by just leaving. To most people this is an easy value judgement that they will take to end the war and leave the system. So, although that can be done through the "meta-game" so to speak without game mechanics, some ways to lay this out in a war dec might be worth looking into.

Also, some people have stated that publically showing who has surrendered will make corps that surrender blatant targets of opportunity. I think that the results of that information should be private. It will get around the merc circles anyways.

Another question : Let's say the Defender totally turns the tide on an Aggressor - can they offer to surrender to the defender to get out of the war early? This might allow an out for a merc group to get out of a war early, but they then have to pay the people that they were just trying to shoot at. Think about it.

2. On this topic :

Q: Corp at war joining an alliance
A: Only aggressor corp is banned from joining an alliance (this is so alliances can't use a corp to dec an alliance and then join to get the whole alliance into the war, there are a few other edge cases). A decced corp can join an alliance and will transfer it's wars to (and from when leaving ) the alliance.

This is back to the old dec shield System. Instead, you just stay in the alliance for a week and then the price goes up ridiculously high and then you drop out again. I think this needs a bit closer examination on how not to **** the mercs who want the war.

Now, I don't think that someones war dec should stop you from joining an alliance. And in my opinion alliances in high sec are just going to get mega huge to make war expenses ridonculously high. This might stop the average 1 man corp, but we might even see mega huge privateer alliances rise again that can afford the costs of these.

(Get a 700 man privateer group, each person gives 1m isk a week and you can war dec a huge alliance easily.)

But, how do you plan on stopping alliance hopping then? I think the most notable deterrent to this would be that if a corp joins an alliance the war is extended 7 days from the moment the corp joins an alliance. Meaning that the mercs keep getting a free extension on their war dec if corps try and move around and alliances have to really consider if they want to take a merc war on just for this corp and wait it out a week.

My biggest prediction from inferno is the rise of mega alliances and mega privateer groups.

The difference from before is these Mega Alliances once formed, even if they are being constantly harassed by privateers, have the chance to make the jump into null sec for their own self-determination. Meaning that they can actually try and take sovereignty because they've become huge, rather than become huge because they've taken sovereignty.

I think this potential is a very positive one for the upcoming future in promoting people out into null sec this way. Once people come together great things happen. THe issue with the last system is that getting an alliance to be large was challenging because some 2 man corp would war dec you and then your carebear whiny friends go "BUT BUT BUT" and drop the alliance to get away from a war dec.

Now they have a reason to stick it out together.


Where I am.

123Next pageLast page