EVE Information Portal

That's funny because that's exactly what me and my friends did about a year and a half ago.

I like what you have to say and agree with all but one point of it. This new system isn't even good for griefing.

Presently a Power-Block can dec for 2m or 50m instead of the proposed base (counting members) which would be much much higher. Those Power-Blocks aren't going out and decing all of High-Sec. I do not see this changing with the new system. The change I do foresee is a dramatic drop in decs from any and all sources. A few people may try the new system, but until an Empire based Power-Block is formed High-Sec is going to be rather void of wars.

I have a feeling that may be their actual goal. Even though they've stated the desire to make being merc (those who declare wars) a viable career path, the costs of operation (not even taking into account the risk of losses assets) are to high. In my years of Empire based wars I keep getting shown, time and time again, that almost no targets are willing to pay the ransom (and this is when it DOESN'T show up on your permanent record). The only possible way we were able to generate an income with wardecing was to go after PoSes and completely ignore everything else. We'd find a PoS, start the war, reinforce the PoS, then ransom them or pop the PoS. Why ... oh why ... should we have to PoS bash in Empire to try to come out ahead? Have you ever tries taking out a PoS in a 20 man corp that only has 10 people on at our peak times trying to take out a Large Guristas tower with Battleships? We all referred to it as mining, not PvP.

+9001

I'm really looking forward to this.

If i can use tags to go from -10 to +5 and if wardecs are really finally fixed, I'm taking a week off of work at launch. I don't get much "stick time" because my RL job takes up *.* of my time... but to be able to war dec and fly around empire and lowsec fighting in wars for profit and lulz will make me feel like a 3mo old char again.

Totally radical dudes (& dudettes)

Lets get our war on!

Do 2-10 man corps get regularly war-decked?

From what I remember, not really, large alliances especially renters can have rolling wardecks, never ending.

It isn't CCP that is forcing people into unwanted PvP. It is people like me forcing others into unwanted PvP. Regardless of the rules that CCP makes to try to prevent, protect, or even encourage, it will not change the fact that EvE is full of people like me who will go out of their way to blow someone up.

The harder CCP makes it for people like me, the more serious people like me become. The only want to end this is either by running people like me out of EvE (banning us), or by making it impossible to do anything against another player (everyone stuck in their own captain's quarters without any interaction with other players).

Don't get me wrong, I don't intend on leaving EvE just because the devs make new rules I disagree with. Just realize, I, and others like me, will do what we can to bypass, bend, and ultimately break said rules to work in our favor.

...specially as there are no consequences to you because of the way CCP thinks they'e gonna sell the game to their potential players.

We are just attempting hard to enlighten CCP on how being an asshat only appeals to a tiny minority of people, and how they are already running out of wannabe asshats and wannabe players to counterbalance the haemorrhage of "carebears" who grow tired of being trolled by everyone and CCP the first.

No matter how noisy was the Incarnagate, it should be the least of CCP's worries. They're struggling to keep the subscription count (they even sent a "Power of 2" offer to my cancelled main!! ), and that's a pretty bad sign when they aim at making life even harder (NOT funnier, only HARDER) to 72% of their subscribers.

PvP and Nullsec whiners are like a cuckoo chick, struggling to get all food from the unsuspecting parents while the legit chicks starve. Maybe CCP should grow up a bit and notice what their players play, where do they play, and for how long they play before leaving as opposed to what they think that players should play or want to play in order to stay subscribed.

I am seeing the new wardec system as something that should have it's name changed, as it has no relation to how what we in the western world call war, works. Also it fundamentally challenges the way many corps work, and how, and why, they were formed.

Democracy, or true "corporations" are now dead. All power, including that to wage war, now rests in the hands of the CEO. The single most important decision affecting a corp is now his, and his alone. I am sure this will change how the dynamic in many corps works , especially old ones, and how they are run. Will A director who used to be able to propose a war vote, and then have it be ratified by corp still be able to do so?

A democratically run corp used to acting it its own defense is now subject to the whim of the CEO.Conversely ,Wars that cost billions of isk can be declared by one man, without corp approval ( in spite of a corp that was deliberately set up that way with shares, needing member approval for wars) running small corps bankrupt in short order. This makes the executive a much stronger figure and in time, will have much farther reaching implications than a simple revision of the wardec system.

Whose idea was it that wardecs can be used as an ISK sink to remedy what you call inflation in the economy?

Large corps are now immune from wardecs from small corps. Large corp CEOS now have more power, and Protection.

Large corp and alliance goods are now effectively protected in highsec, further minimizing their risks.

You say you institute this system in part to make merc corps a more viable occupation, and that the overall content of the patch is to increase PvP, yet, a large bloc of players is now insulated from wardecs by cost. This mechanic, as stated in my opening sentence , is counter to how war works.It is the Offensive force, who must maintain, feed, and pay for mobilization during war that incurs the greatest penalty.

In short we are paying mobilization costs for our corp, not the enemies corp. Fees should be tied to the size of the attacking corp. They are the one Mobilizing, not the defending corp. We should be paying for our mobilization fee, not our enemies. You guys are looking at this backwards.

The fee should not be tied to corp size defending , but to corp size ATTACKING , if anything. This is how war in the real world works, and is fundamental to the nature of war, and is a reflection of the costs of Offensive Mobilization. Such costs can be the only justification for anything other than a flat Fee.

How, in any kind of logical sense, does a 25 man corp run up fees in the billions simply to take a fight to, say, Goonswarm?
how does that happen? it cant. Your wardec costs in fact can exceed the entire assets and hangars of smaller corps.

It is clear that the fee has no basis on any functional reality, but rather is a new ISK sink, and is simply another issue that CCP has identified as " OOh, look here, if we make Wardecs cost morethen we can suck money out of the economy" That is another issue altogether, and the manner that CCP is going about trying to drain up ISK.( It's very reminiscent of recent US programs to suck money out of the taxpayers wallets, and for similar ends, I might add )

Basically, CCP is raising the status of corporations to the status of " states" and CEOS to dictators.Now small corps are to be " non state actors" denied the privilege of waging war on larger corps. Many wars are started IRL by a small group waging war on a larger group and it then escalating to include other parties. This is part of the fundamental nature of war. Anyone can pick up a sword, or gun, announce his intent, and go to town.

Now, CCP will deny you the privilege of enforcing your intent, and the ability to act even as a terrorist. Large corps and alliances are now immune from all but major mobilizations by other major actors. Doesn't sound to me like something that promotes a " sandbox" playstyle, even as CCP attempts to conjure up new ways to take ISK out of the pockets of players who made them fairly and excersised their right to save it for a rainy day, or a cap, or whatever they wanted.

Does not bode well for free will and a player driven game.Granting DeFacto protection for large corps only, in high sec, not by the corp actually protecting its assets, but by having CCP shield such assets from harm by making the cost of attacking them prohibitive. Prohibition now becomes a large part of CCPs protection scheme for major alliance assets.

FIGHT PROHIBITION!!!

Does CCP feel these large corps NEED this protection? if not, then why implement it, if not simply as a scheme to be another ISK sink. Go back to CCP ISK sink man, and explain to him what is war, how it works, and why EvE will no longer be able to be played as a wargame, and should be renamed " spaceship mafia". or have him find another ISK sink. Or, better yet, come up with features that will promote PvP and have the people spend their money on ships, to replace ones that get blown up, as opposed to introducing a mechanic that minimizes PvP (as small corps dock, or go belly up, or get Borged into larger ones) by making it a luxury of those who need it the least, whose status is only threatened by war, whose ISK faucets are only threatened when their Haulers enter high sec. Instead CCP gives them protection.


CCP claims that these changes will make war a more viable option, and bring about a period of conflict Like that of Rome during the end of the republic and the birth of the Empire, as they fought all foreign nations, and house fought against house withing themselves.

I think instead they will find that all they have done is brought about is a Pax Mittania.

You sound as if this is something bad to do in-game.

If you're neutral and start remote repping folks involved in a war, that war should extend to you.

However I'd be happy with 48/72/whatever hour killrights <3

probably too late in the thread to get an answer, but:

1) Ok basically my understanding of the war dec mechanic (lore wise) is that it represents a bribe by the attacker to concord to simply look the other way while they attack the defenders ships/assets. If so, why is there no counter bribe method? I.E. Attacker bribes concord then within the next 24h the defender could counter bribe concord (with obviously a higher amount) to make the war not happen. and so on... I mean come on, wardecs are pure isk sinks and I know dr. E is looking for other isk sinks. You have to have at least thought of this...

2) Positing that war decs could possibly represent something other than a straight "look the other way" bribe, why is the no casus belli system with consequences for not having a valid casus belli in the first place. Not to mention casus foederis and all that "fun"? Or would that be too hard on the poor attackers?