EVE Information Portal

omg, that's just....

Why small corps wouldnt be able to declare wars against bigger ones?
Why small corps deserve to be cheaper targets than blobs?

We are not all living in blobs, and personnally i DON'T WANT.

I don't know what is the ratio between people in small corps/alliance and people in blobs, but I think that there will be a lot of people angry because of this rule.

At Fanfest I recall the claim that the increased Dec fee was to generate an isk sink. The need of an isk sink seems not a bad idea. I feel, however, that the target of the isk sink is the wrong group. Generally the corps that go out doing wardec as their main thing do not generate much personal isk. The individuals who DO generate larger amounts of isk are those who try to avoiding fighting as much as possible in hopes of maximizing their profits. Industrial corps, Traders, and Incursion runners are able to generate large amounts of isk in a very safe manner. By safe I mean without any lose of profits, which allows for them to stockpile more wealth and gain larger control over the economy and have a direct contribution to inflation (look at PLEX prices since Incursions started, they've almost doubled).

For those who do not agree with wardecs in this thread, please understand that the aggressors are your isk sink. The people attacking you are a piece of the checks and balances in EvE's economy.

By having a drastic increase in dec fees (0.5m per head in target) the isk sink is directly targeted at the aggressor. While individual wars will become more expensive, I foresee less isk total being spent on wars since only select groups will be able to afford the fees against their desired targets. This will directly go against CCP's claim of turning war into an isk since (it will 'sink' less isk) and it will also waterdown the overall impact of wars themselves being an isk sink on profit based organizations within Empire (since there would be less wars, fewer fights, and less things getting blown up, and less common of profit based corps having to shut there doors for a week as they sit in station).

The war declaration costs should be much higher!?

In RL a war between countries could cause a country to go bankrupt.
In EVE a bunch of homeless people collecting space scrap could easily fund a corporation war or even an alliance war.

Why not increase the war dec costs or the cost per pilot?

(sorry in advance for any errors)
I don't know if this has been suggested. But I think it is a very FAIR solution to war cost on both sides.
I hope a CCP DEV gets to see this and considers looking at it, as I feel it is very viable, it would help ADD elements to gameplay.

On the topic of "War Dec Costs"

The cost should first be on the actual Corp / Alliance side before any war decs are even placed, then a "bonus" should be applied based on those costs, that then dictate the actual initial cost of the War being proposed.

Let's say base cost to dec a corp is 20mil and 100mil for an alliance (FLAT)

* Corps / Alliances should have to pay concord every week / bi-weekly for Protection Upkeep of their corp / alliances.

POSITIVE PAYMENTS / STANDINGS
- Neutral
0 isk - allowing war decs to be declared at a 0% increase in base cost to corp/alliance
(so if a corp or alliance is neutral it doesn't cost an "increase" to war dec them)
So thus Aggressor war decs will cost 20mil to a corp or 100mil to an alliance.

-Good Standing
Corps:
0-10 members 5 mil bi-weekly 50% cost protection increase bonus
11-20 members 10mil bi-weekly 55% cost protection increase bonus
21-30 members 15mil bi-weekly 60% cost protection increase bonus
so on (5mil increase per block - 5% increase in protection per block)

Alliances:
0-25 Members 25mil bi-weekly 50% cost protection increase bonus
26-50 Members 50mil bi-weekly 55% cost protection increase bonus
51-75 Members 75mil bi-weekly 60% cost protection increase bonus
76-100 Members 100mil bi-weekly 65% cost protection increase bonus
100-200 Members 150mil bi-weekly 70% cost protection increase bonus
200-300 Members 200mil bi-weekly 75% cost protection increase bonus
so on. (@ the 100 member mark blocks would be 100 member based with 50 mil per block 5% protection per block)

Cap 100% Cost increase

-Excellent Standing (base protection costs increased, 5% base reduction increase)
Corps:
0-10 members 10 mil bi-weekly 55% cost protection increase bonus
11-20 members 15mil bi-weekly 60% cost protection increase bonus
21-30 members 20mil bi-weekly 65% cost protection increase bonus
so on (5mil increase per block - 5% increase in protection per block)

Alliances:
0-25 Members 35mil bi-weekly 55% cost protection increase bonus
26-50 Members 60mil bi-weekly 60% cost protection increase bonus
51-75 Members 85mil bi-weekly 65% cost protection increase bonus
76-100 Members 110mil bi-weekly 70% cost protection increase bonus
100-200 Members 160mil bi-weekly 75% cost protection increase bonus
200-300 Members 220mil bi-weekly 80% cost protection increase bonus
so on. (@ the 100 member mark blocks would be 100 member based with 60 mil per block 5% protection per block)

Cap 100% Cost increase

----------------------
Now for a balance to the above
----------------------

PIRATE / MERC / WAR STANDINGS

PIRATE
25mil isk bi-weekly @ corp = 10% overall reduction to war cost for remainder of war placed
50mil isk bi-weekly @ alliance = 20% overall reduction to war cost for remainder of war placed
(If PIRATE corp pays Concord, they get a 10% reduction to War Dec CORP A, this 10% cost reduction remains in place for the remainder of the war, no matter the changes to either side as long as the actual war price is paid on time every week, this means a pro-longed dedicated war has a cost reduction locked in, where as short wars would not benefit as much from this is the target corp/alliance has good standings)

MERC
50mil isk bi-weekly @ corp = 25% overall reduction to war cost for remainder of war placed
100mil isk bi-weekly @ alliance = 50% overall reduction to war cost for remainder of war placed

Side-Effect (notice merc on merc is cheaper)
10% cost reduction for Merc corp/alliance to declare war
5% cost reduction for War corp/alliance to declare war

WAR
100mil isk bi-weekly @ corp = 50% overall reduction to war cost for remainder of war placed
150mil isk bi-weekly @ alliance = 75% overall reduction to war cost for remainder of war placed

Side-Effect
(notice war on war is cheaper)
5% cost reduction for Pirate corp/alliance to declare war
10% cost reduction for Merc corp/alliance to declare war
15% cost reduction for War corp/alliance to declare war


----------------------
Now for some skills
----------------------

Corp Skill (higher rank skills)
War Protection: 1% reduced cost for protection fees to concord (per level)
War Declaraction: 1% reduced cost to declare war (per level)

Social (higher rank skills)
Concord Negotiation: 1% increase to protection bonus
Concord Bribe: 1% decrease to protection bonuses of target corp/alliance


----------------------
Multiple Wars
----------------------
Corp = 10mil per war max 6 wars at a time
Alliance = 25mil per war max 12 wars at a time


Now i'm not a DEV, so I didn't put a ton of time into this as I kind of doubt it'll ever be seen/considered.
But I think it has grounds to be looked at, and fine tuned.

I think it would help "create" a better War system in general, thus allowing corps/alliances to register for Protection, and to register as Pirates/Mercs/Alliances, thus allowing those that WISH to fight a way to find other fighting corps, at reduced costs! Where as attacking a protected corp/alliance would obviously costs more. However every corp/alliance CAPS out meaning at some point their size does no5 grant them immunity, as it should not, in fact size should make them more vulnerable, and or more capable to defend themselves





I really hope this helps in some way

Gotta love the tinfoil hattery sometimes...

There's a couple of things peeps [ahem] complaining [/ahem] about "CCP forcing them into non-consensual PVP against their will" forget:

CCP has never "forced" anyone into non-consensual PVP other than creating a game that is based on the concept.
Wherever, whenever you are in EVE, you can be shot at, it's simply the repercussions that change depending on the "safety" of the zone you fly around in.

The simple fact is that as soon as you leave the relative safety of a NPC corp ( which basically allows only ganking tactics against you, unless you're st00pid and call Agression on yourself.) you can be wardecced.
CCP now plugs a fair number of holes in the wardeccing system that were used by both sides of the equation to play the system, which makes highsec warfare a hell of a lot better than it was.

Formal rules of warfare are always rather ...artificial.. since they are meant to prevent outright predation on the weak and helpless. They are not ever meant to provide "complete safety".
If you want complete safety, stay in a NPC corp and never, ever undock. Then again, that's not playing EVE, isn't it?

Between NPC corp wardec restrictions and some common sense, new and unskilled pilots can be mostly safe from predation, and utterly free of wardecs. This doesn't change at all in the new system, so I really do not see how newbies and unskilled pilots are "less protected" under the new system.
On the other hand, the peeps basing their warfare tactics/killboard padding on "neutral" RR will have a problem, as their precious neutral alts can now be shot even better than under the current system. Interfere in a war: get a proper agression counter, get shot.
Personally I feel that if someone in a NPC corp uses any module on another ship they should get concordokkened in high, but that will never fly..

As for small corps, really guys 'n dolls, a fair percentage of those are just alt-holders where people play EVE solo to avoid NPC corp taxes. (Which aren't even near what they should be. There should be a NPC corp transaction tax on market sales as well to catch the traders and miners who come away scot-free now.)
The price you pay for a low or non-existent tax rate in a player corp is simply the risk of a wardec in highsec. You can whinge about it, but that's how the game is designed. Don't like it? Stay in NPC corp and cough up your taxes like a good citizen.

The new price for a wardec is steep, and I'm not sure it's quite balanced or even realistic, but in the end it will even things out a bit. The base price is, and should be, a lot higher than the current system, which will make a LuLzDec a lot more expensive and less likely. So at least you'll know that people deccing you will have a serious investment made in you, instead of just seeing if they can scare you into coughing up ISK to get rid of a wardec which happens a lot now.
In my opinion a formula based on relative size should determine both base prize and cap working from the agressors' size up and down, not just absolute size from the bottom up, but a man can dream..

I foresee corporations pumping themselves full of alts and possibly inactive accounts, if you guys allow it, to make themselves hard to war dec. I also think the cost of declaring war on a corp should go in the opposite direction relative to the size of the corp / alliance. You don't want massive organizations to be capable of so easily harrassing smaller ones because it's cheap to do so. And a larger corp shouldn't have a difficult time protecting itself if wardec'd and so shouldn't cost as much to dec. Just my two cents.

you want to solve neutral logistics from causing problems n a war. it's simple. don't allow a logistics module to be activated on a target if that target is engaged with a war target that the logistics pilot is not also a target of. simply put, if the logi pilot is not in the war, he should not be allowed to help. crim tag and concord him. if he wants to rep his buddy after the 15 minute aggression timer is gone, whatever. But don't allow him to help while combat is active.

edit.. oh and your per-member cost is ass backward. it should cost more to wardec a corporation that is smaller than you. If it stays as-is you'll just have greifer blob corps camping 10-man indy corps in station for eternity. would solve no problems.

Dude, Eve is a PvP Game, WTF did you expect? By you "Warning" with you quiting, would no different than all PvP groups having a jacked up PvP game with Safety zone for non-Pvp and rage quit by conforming to carebear who joined a PvP game but the complain about being pushed to PvP. WTF do you think the Demand of all your produced goods go to? Why do you think people need more ships, guns, etc. If you cripple a PvP formated Game the market drops as PvPers leave. Then you don't have anything being bought or sold because hardly anyone is losing anything! Then the game becomes stagnant and all carebears can just sit and spin your meaningless trophy ships all day.

Eve won't miss Carebears... Ever, cause PvPers will do everything needed to support their own PvP. If Eve losses a significate amount of PvPers the game and it's economy will suffer and diminish.

Increased War costs isn't a proper ISK sink as it's aim purely against the smaller PvP Corps. If CCP maintains this high impact cost adjustment, it will greatly cripple the game. Pure fact as 75% of players are in High Sec. CCP needs to keep it at a Flat rate, or have a smaller incremental amount if they're stuck on that... More like 100K per member. Don't do both and for goodness sake don't give more power to Drama filled large corps & alliances.

***To Mr. CCP SoniClover & Team Super Friends***
I watched all the Fanfest Keynotes, Especially on these proposed War Changes. And I noticed a lot of assumptions were being made, like all High Sec PvPers are Alts with Mains in Null with Healthy ISK pockets, and this is your Validation for shooting up the costs. This is absurb as there are plenty of us that are not! We are here simply because we dislike Blob Warfare! To us, small scale PvP is much more fun & Tactical. And before ppl say we're all Griefers, we (Our Corp at least) are not. We have goals & actual purpose to our Wars. We actually enjoy Combating those that try to Grief. Your stance of commitment to Wars by Cost Hikes? How will that do anything when defenders will just stay docked or not log in and that insane War cost gets shoved back inour face and LOL'd at as a waste of ISK Per Week no less! They do it now with 2 mill costs. You guys really need to change your mindset on this very Important Topic.

Carebears curruntly have this confused as being bad for them when it's not... Quite the Opposite. Null Seccers want this for their protection of goods through Highsec. How can you not see the detriment of such a cost structure as you have planned for? You guys will effectively wipe out the little guys in PvP. This just doesn't make any logical sense. There's plenty of Great suggestion in this Thread to maintain a balance and give both PvP AND Carebears a proper and logical way to handle Wars with engaging for with goals to control the war and better surrender terms. Please utilize these suggestions.

o7

From a CSM member :

tl;dr Kelduum wants to keep his dec shield.

Like he did with the current mechanism. Your point ?
CCP stated that they don't want a "dec shield" (I can quote the CCP Dev during the Fanfest).