Crime & Punishment

Wardec Presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ2u9Njy4VA&

The coming changes to the wardec system look positive. A clear cut goal on allowing players to know what they are getting into (or having thrust upon them) with easier to understand and utilize options that are available to the players. However, there are a few parts that seem to hit a snag on the listed goals and removes existing play styles

1) The fee for a wardec looks a bit high. I accept the desire to make it a larger moneysink, but the model presented seems out of line. That model being 20/50m plus 0.5m per member each week. These costs directly go against the one of the intended functions of the war as stated in the presentation. The fees grant smaller corporations a forum of immunity in that they would not have the ability to pay enough (ransom) to even cover the cost of the dec itself. While at the same time the only groups able to afford decing the power-blocks will be those getting funding from said power-blocks. This goes against the goal of encouraging wars outside of empire as well as limiting viable targets for a war since the high and low ends are both removed from the average player. As an example, it would cost over 4.2 Billion Isk to declare war on the Goons for one week (only taking into account their player-count). One of the main points presented in the presentation was a desire to encourage Null Sec wars to become sanctioned through the new mechanics. The payments of billions of isk per week are not enough to warrant In-Game features that can be found on many third party killboard websites

~My suggestion is to keep (and maybe even raise) the initial starting dec fee (20/50m plus 0.5m per member), but then reduce the weekly fee to sustain the dec to encourage a war to 'run its course.' This goes directly in line with a more impactful war system that was stated as desired in the presentation. Additionally, having a set 'maximum' fee may not be a bad idea to aid in declaring wars on larger power-blocks to deny them easy access to trade-hubs.

2) I REALLY like the Ally system in that it allows for people to jump into a war without having to pay for it. But this seems very one sided in the favor of the defender, granting them a lot of power and control over the war itself which will generally turn into the aggressor dropping the dec once they get the chance if things are not in their favor. Being stuck in a bad war for a week isn't much of a risk since many players are only really active a few days out of the week.

~My suggestion is to set a war to 'mutual' when the defender brings in an ally. My reasoning: when the aggressor pays the fees to start a war they are indicating that they want to 'kick the other guy's teeth in'. When the defender brings in an ally they are showing they that also want to 'kick the other guy's teeth in', which would mean that they mutually want to fight it out, and thus should have the war set to mutual. This would remove the aggressor's need to pay the weekly fee, but would also remove their ability to withdraw the war itself without paying compensations to the other party (more risk to start a war, but a 'reward' of not having to pay). It would also put an increased meaning or 'weight' to the defender pulling in allies to fight their fights for them since it may mean that they get stuck in the war for a prolonged time if things turns south (though they can just bring in more allies).

This would also call for a change to mutual where the only way for either party to get out of a mutual war is to meet the terms of the other member of the war, aggressor and defender alike.

---

Most of what I have originally brought up deals directly with the fees of running a war. This is due to one of the key goals of changing the system as stated in the presentation (8:16 into the above link of the presentation) of "Making fighting war a viable career path for dedicated mercenary corps." Which does not seem to take into account that the income for these wars comes directly from the targets, who would be unable to pay the ransom fees required to make a profitable career path out of war decing.

I know that these suggestions may not be optimal, but I hope that this is a nice place to start a discussion.

There's another side to the increased price. The price of the war will very quickly exceed the plausible isk that the defender can pay as a ransom. If the defending corp can not afford to pay the isk required to make a war profitable for the aggressor then it removes one of the key goals of the new wardec system: Making wardecing a viable career path.

I do not disagree that the prices are very low right now, but the proposed increase in price has a high chance of reducing the ability to generate profit and thus increase the potential of players gaming the system by playing both sides (aggressor and ally) to extort as much isk out of the target as possible.

Whereas if the fees are more reasonable there is a smaller chance that people will go out of their way to try to make it profitable (since it would be already).

I do not know what you mean by 'grief tool', however. I do not know if you are using it as a form of blanket statement coming from not knowing the various avenues of empire wardecs, or if you have had bad experiences in the past. As such, could you explain why you consider it to be a 'grief tool.'