EVE General Discussion

Lets have a look at just one paragraph of that article.



That is plainly wrong. With legal decshields any corp can shake off any war at any given time. It's currently simply not possible to take down a POS in highsec that is filled up with stront.



Any CEO has to have a plan what happens at war time before he presses the button to create the corp. If he starts to prepare for war when CONCORD sends a mail it's to late and that CEO should be driven out of business.



There is no reason why one can't declare a counter war when the wardec mail hits the inbox. That's even possible right now.

That's just one paragraph in that article. Pretty much anything he writes is either plain wrong or an assumption. In can only hope that the author has never played EVE Online.

This of course is going to be a major cause of the end of many medium sized established miner corps. Whom in their right minds will stay in a corp when it is wardecked by a 1 man alt corp that can becomes a 20 man corp when corp hoppers notice the miners are out so they all join in system in station. 1 man alts corps are going to be wardecking like crazy & the only 2 ways for the miners to avoid them will be joining NPC corps where mining isn't taxed anyways or thier own 1 man alt corps.

First off, I can see that this guy is a total carebear. Also, most of that article is complete rubbish and I can't help but notice total bias.

To start, I notice that he focuses on the attacking corps being able to 'weasel' their way out of a war should things go south, like not re-upping the war. 1) I would think this is good news for the corp that got wardec'd. I am pretty sure that in many cases they really don't want the fight but if they can scare off the dog then great. 2) I can't help but notice that the narrator conveniently left out Dec-shields but focuses on the dec'd corps being so helpless. A corp is only as helpless as they let themselves be. 3) He talks about Merc's not really being a boon as the wardec corp again can just weasel out of the situation. Again, I point to #1. Isn't this the goal, to get the monkey of your back?

Second, I find his comment about pvp corps being shell corps loaded with alts and how they will always pick weak or industrial targets to be complete bull. I am not an alt. My corp is not a shell corp. And we do not strictly go after weak targets. And I know my corp is not the only corp that works to these standards. In fact back when I was in Warsmith's we would regularly be hired as mercs to go after other grief corps. Simply put the Narrator is factually wrong here.

The above also coincides with point three, that these small shell corps have 0 risk when attacking larger corps. Again, a corp is only as helpless as it allows itself to be. If they decide to dock up and do nothing then that is their choice, just let it be known that there are tons of other options out there. And as I said, we are not always risk free. We may know how to fit a ship better than some corps and know how to use them, but numbers are still numbers, and if the larger corp that we're attacking suddenly decides to fight in numbers, there is very little we can do.

And Four, he doesn't even touch on half of the mechanics that CCP is planning on implementing. In fact most of the article reads like your typical thread where he makes several factual mistakes, and comes up with some idea that naturally will 'fix' everything.

That is a horrible article.

Quite a terri-bad article.

Want attackers to commit to a war? Simple:

If the the defender makes the war mutal, it's no longer possible for the attacker to end the war by lapsing the bill.
The only option left for them then is by formal surrender, accepting the defenders terms.

That, in combination with CCP's idea for a 'deserters' mark for people leaving a wardecced corp and the ease and lack of cost for adding allies, should fix the whole problem quite nicely. Don't forget that most wardeccers are e-peen warriors and such a mark would likely be a bigger blemish then a negative kill-board ratio.

Putting things like 'victory conditions' into a mechanic is simply asking for abuse and exploits. War objectives are something that resides squarely in the realm of meta-gaming and should NEVER become some arbitrary 'objective'.

The only problem I see now with the upcoming wardec system is that it makes it almost too expensive to go after big alliances, and does very little to protect the smaller corporations.

Instead, divide the corporations and alliances in size-brackets with fixed war-fees for each bracket and cost-modifiers penalizing declaration of wars on a corporation outside your own size bracket.

Edit: I've fleshed out the dea of size-classes:

Corporations are divided into size-classes each with a pricetag.

1-10 (15M)
10-25 (25M)
25-50 (40M)
50-100 (75M)
100-250 (150M)
250-500 (350M)
500-1000 (600M)
1000+ (750M)

The cost of war is the sum of the price-tags belonging to both corporations.

So a 60 player corporation declaring war on a 14 player corporation would weekly cost 100M ISK. It is relatively cheaper to wardec larger corporations than smaller ones, because they are supposed to be more capable to defend themselves. The size-classes also reduces the ease of member-padding to drive up the warbill.

Also: shooting structures isn't a solution to ANYTHING and is just lazy gamedesign.

Edit: it also removes guerilla-warfare from the game by making the structure an very easy way to force a pitched battle. Something pretty much always won by the biggest blob (so no more attacking larger corporation either).

Bad poster with a website is still a bad poster.

And what about "one little problem" that attackers are in 99% alts in alt corp that don't need to play at all on that alts to play EVE and defenders don't have that privilege so they actually cant play at all???

There are pretty much only two problems with the wardec revamp. One is that it makes decshielding the default mechanic — bloat your corp/alliance to the point where it is financial suicide to dec it. The other is that it reduces the viability of revenge by requiring mutuality to be declared within the first 24h.

The suggested revamp solves a whole lot of problems (and crimewatch 2.0 fills in some of the cracks), but it also manages to completely go against its own intentions because CCP doesn't seem to understand how wars are being used.

wardecs aren't for war right now which is the actual problem. its for griefing and pos removal. ccp is trying to at least turn the fail griefing into an isk sink.
hell with my isk i could dec an alliance for over a year. that's stupid.. and the dec shield is a player invented work around to the real problem of griefers who think killing people who don't know how to fight means anything

i for one think there should be benefits for declaring war all the time, more then just " you can attack people in highsec"
wars should be declared in nullsec and lowsec. there should be a reason for it other then " to kill their players in highsec.

war declarations should be a big deal but in eve its just "oh great another griefer corp trying to pad their bad killboard stats" for industry corps and
"i hope i get free kills on nubs" for the griefer corps.

Is his sollution is a wired tournament mechanic? Or am I wrong?

No. He is talking about the ability to make a war mutual, which is already part of the wardec system.