EVE Information Portal

To declare war on the largest and most bloated alliances would cost:

1. Goonswarm Federation - 4.23 Bil
2. Test Alliance Please Ignore - 3.24 Bil
3. Against All Authorities - 1.68 Bil
4. Intrepid Crossing - 1.49 Bil
5. Solar Citizens - 1.36 Bil
6. AAA Citizens - 1.27 Bil
7. Legion of xXDEATHXx - 1.21 Bil
8. Razor Alliance - 1.2 Bil
9. Fatal Ascension - 1.08 Bil
10. En Guarde - 1.04 Bil
.
.
.
23. Pandemic Legion - 787 Mil
.
.
.
100. Echoes of Nowhere - 272.5 Mil

per week!

This change to cost formula serves only to protect the alliances that need protection least.

There is zero reason for CCP to interfere and seek to protect large bulky alliances, it doesn't make any sense that wars should be changed in this way.

As someone suggested, cost should be inversely proportional to both relative size AND killboard. Big corps or big killers declaring small corps or small killers should be penalyzed with a higher cost. Small corps or small killers wardeccing the big guys should be greeted for their galls and have a low wardec cost.

And of course anyone wardecced against his will should be able to drop the war for free after a week.

CCP are you trying to get rid of small Corps and Alliances? Or was your formula accidentally reversed some how?
.

After listening to the presentation on War Declarations, I have these reactions:
I strongly approve of the direction and intent of the proposed changes.
I would like the super team to think more carefully about the role of neutral remote repping.
• Remote repair by neutral players is often used by more experienced aggressors to ensnare less experienced defenders into battles in which a small apparent advantage of numbers is nullified by the sudden appearance nominally neutral allies.
• Neutral support is not a resource to be eliminated because of its value in saving vessels and equalizing ship hp in can tipping and similar situations.
• Neutral support of declared war participants could be discouraged by lowering of the neutral assistance’s security status. Perhaps a set factor multiplied by the number of incidents in a set period of time. This would permit both sides to continue to use the tactic but could ultimately make the neutral participant wary and possibly, temporarily, keep them out of high sec.
• Penalizing the neutral participant will also have the effect of introducing additional uncertainty into high sec battles.
I am somewhat concerned about any stigma that might be associated with leaving a corporation during a declared war.
• Early in a Pilot’s career it one often makes a poor choice of corporation or new corporations change their direction or form alliances that are contrary to temperament or interests of the pilot.
• High security wars do have the effect on demonstrating the importance the fundamental importance of combat skills to the neophyte. However, once recognized, the player should not be penalized for acknowledging that their current skills and resources make their participation in a particular war impractical. The turtle option is always available but not a choice many new players would make without leaving EVE entirely.
• There are many legitimate reasons that a more experienced player would leave their corporation during a war. Among these are pressing needs for ISK or particular minerals to replace ship losses. An altruistic decision taken in consultation with other corporation members should not be penalized.
• When a corporation or alliance is composed of members that span the world’s time zones it is often the case that the main action takes place at times when some members or asleep or at work. The corporation may then decide that the best contribution in defense is, again, the generation of income or manufacture of materials for the corporation or alliance.
• If it is possible for the CEO to declare war without consultation then a faction of the corporation may decide that their best response, in their own interests, is to leave the corporation for a less autocratic environment.
• The Public Kill Boards like Battle Clinic, and the in game employment history tell any interested party a great deal about the personality and experience of the player. A further stigmatization of the player hardly seems necessary.

this ^^

A lot of people are going to cancel subscriptions as a result of unwanted, prolonged, unending wars that follow them whereever they go or as soon as they give up their hard earned isk to end the war for the aggressor ro see this as a weakness and re-wardec for more money over and over again.

Wars need to backfire. the DEFENDER should choose to prolong a war indefinitely!

The idea of using the attacker's killboard to determine war costs:

Attacker kicks all members with a good KB.
Attacker declares war.
Attacker accepts applications from all kicked members.

As CCP has said: basing costs on the status of the attacker, be it member count or KB, allows for gaming the cost.

That's equivalent to wardec with a cheap small alt corp and then make an alliance with your main corp to join the war.

Solution? Corps with a huge killboard imparity can stop the war after a week no mattter what the agressor does.

The point is, those agreeing to war shoudl beat it on their own. But those who do not want war should be allowed to play the game the way they want, not how CCP and its buddy SOBs shove down their throats.

And yea... that was my idea when o was writing that.
And that way there is no possible exploits.

ccp is fixing the wrong problem. the war dec system is fine, its the premise in which a war is to be fought and declared.


the real question is "WHY DECLARE WAR"

if its just for pvp targets and to fluff KB's then no matter how you configure you war mechanics it will never work.


you have to write the war game from the ground up.

perhaps corperation is the wrong term all together maybe what we have here in eve is more like feudal japan, in which case you can just decide to want to declare war simply because you dont like them. and once a surrender is issued the name of the group is gone forever.

and that in itsself would drive war, removing "corp" names from game. now we have a foundation to declare war in all secs of space none the less.

in the end I think all players want soild drivers and consequences in which war is rooted. once that is writen then we can have solid war mechanics that work.


cause what we have now is a rocking chair, sure you have something to do but it doesnt get you anywhere.

Wardeccing is a fricking minefield.

There is no one solution that can avoid all exploitations, some of the excellent posts in here are testimony to that.

Ditch all the existing mechanics and start with a clean sheet.

There is one simple reason for war declarations, and that is to create valid targets in 0.5+ space.

There are three core reasons why players want that feature: Tactical, Griefing, or "Just for the Hell of it".

No game mechanic will ever be able to differentiate between those reasons, and that's where you're stuffed. I'm all for tactical warfare, but by having to also embrace the other two you simply facilitate highsec ganking. You can't have one without the other.

War deccing has always been the playground of the rich, big, or plain loony. It has always been slanted against the thousands of small corporations - especially industrial - who want nothing to do with war at all.

I think it should be extremely *difficult* to declare war on another corp/alliance. It should *not* be a simple case of "I haz isk, I'm bored/angry, I shall declare war".

I think you should focus on the fact that for 99% of wars, the aggressor has usually been assembling intel for some time previous to declaring their intentions. Perhaps you could consider an improved "Locator" system available only to aggressees, to partly level the intel playing field once war begins. Use the API to assess recent kills relating to the involved parties and possibly adjust costs prior to the war starting. Make it a full week between war application and approval - or even disapproval.

After all, why should the wardec mechanic automatically approve every war? War is serious. It should be considered by some Galactic Counsel or other who pores over the appliacationsfor several days. Why not flat out disallow some wars based on a set of criteria? And set punitive damages against the corps who try it on as well?

Personally I like the idea of players in very small corps, that have been wardecced, having a CONCORD panic button which summons the cops in a response time related to the security status of the player rather than the system they're in. A one-time use maybe. Lord knows how you'd implement that though :s

I'll stop putting out stuff. Lots of you probably think I'm nuts, and these suggestions just make for more ways to exploit. That's as maybe. But the message I'm trying to put across is that War is a horribly complex thing, and the current mechanics are too simple to make it work properly.