EVE Information Portal

Set the cost modifier to be determined by the amount of members you outnumber the target corp by. Something like, with 1 more member it's 1 mil, then 50 mil for ten more, 100mil for 30 more...etc. etc. etc...

With this kind of system in place, you can set the base fees at high number (I.E. 200 and 400(i changed the alliance fee from 500 down to 400, that way forming two smaller corps instead of attacking as an alliance won't be cheaper, but rather the same)).

So,
This does 3 things for the war dec system

1) It suggest to the players to take a moderate risk and either dec a taret of close to equal size, or take a huge risk and dec a much larger target.

2) Forces the players to determine if they're willing to pay more than base cost to wardec.

3) Forces the alliances to create a smaller number corp/alliance if they want to cheaply take out an annoying high sec corp, which allows the high sec corp to somewhat stand a chance.

4) Instead of you at CCP having to determine which characters count, you can just say they all count, and leave it to the players to clean out their corps of innactive players, or account alt characters.

I would suggest a cost system like this so that it puts less burden on you at CCP to determine what's fair and what's not. This is more of a sand box system that allows the players to determine costs and what characters count.

High sec used to get along fine without incursions, however, now that they've been introduced in high sec already, if you don't find something reasonable to replace them with I.E. lvl 5's, then there would be outrage.

As far as lvl 4's go, if you removed them from high sec there would be a MAJOR issue. Even those players that don't enjoy lvl 4's, or typically do other things such as trade or mining will occationally dive into some lvl 4's with friends or just to pass the time.

lvl 4's are also a massive producer of salvage materials, meta 1-4 items, and minerals from reprocessing loot.

However, removing lvl 4's from high sec would bring the salvage prices up so much that running lvl 3's would be just as profitable or more so, since they produce less salvage materials than lvl 4's.

So not only would production cost more, thus making everything more expensive, but players flying lvl 3's would be coming out just as prifitable as before, but with much less effort to put into it.

At least lvl 4 missions put a bit of challenge on the players.


I also wanted to itterate on something you said much earlier on in the thread.



This should be supported. Tiny entities should freely be able to wardec much larger entities at base cost because they're taking a risk in doing so.

The large entities have not only put themselves out there by making themselves so big and well known, but they also have the numbers to be able to easily fend off a tiny entity.
However, if that tiny entity isn't fighting them at all, but rather scaring them off from entering certain systems because that's where the smaller entity lies, well, this is no different than what we smaller groups deal with every time we get war decced.
If we can't fight off those deccing us, then we suffer and get stuck in stations, or are forced to leave the corp/alliance.

Your answer to that question basically make me feel that you're saying the alliances should be protected from tactics like these, which they can more easily counter, but those of us who aren't able to counter these tactics should just suck it up and deal with it....well...because it's part of Eve.

These majoor corps/alliances take risks in making themselves so big and well known. They should have all the capability to fend them off. If they don't, well, then it's no different than what the rest of us have to face.

It is not a fallacy. There has to be space for new, inexperienced players and for people to recover from large losses. This applies to anybody. You also obviously can not apply different rules to people based on their age/experience.

Off-topic, so I'll try to limit myself to a quick response. Apologies to everyone on this thread. :)


There is ALWAYS outrage in Eve, even for insignificant changes. :)

Seriously, though, Incursions are limited to a rather small percentage of the high sec player base. They are now run by a monopolistic group of players, hopping from Incursion to Incursion, grinding them for ISK. And, since only the largest fleet gets paid, there is no incentive for solo players or small groups - which make up the larger part of high sec - to engage an Incursion separately.


L4 missions are not much of a challenge. In fact, the main problem with L4s is that they are now far too easy to solo, due to the power creep in ships over the years. The rewards have never been tweaked downwards, so the ISK/hour is simply too high.

Similarly, the amount of T1 salvage, high meta items, and reprocessable modules which L4s dump on the market has become too high.

Reprocessable modules have negatively impacted the mining industry - and I think that CCP's removal of meta 0 module drops is a good first step on correcting this problem.

Certain high meta items - such as Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates - have become so common and cheap that they have made the T2 versions absolutely worthless.

T1 salvage and rigs could stand with becoming a bit more rare and expensive. At one time, rigs were a pricey option - now, they have become just another cheap module to fit to your ship, without much thought or consideration.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

High sec is more like little league football.
Low sec is semipro football.
Null/wh is pro football.


Would you let a miner league player on the pro team without first showing he's capable? Hell no he'd get clobbered.

Would you put any of the players on the same field as little leaguers and tell them to have at it? Hell no... No one in their right mind
would allow their children to every play football. Which would mean there would be no children getting trained and joining semi pro, which means there would be no semi's to pull into the pro league.

There are several forms of the game, but just because they're all the same game and they eventually effect each other doesn't mean that they should all be on the same field.

Yet another high sec POS wardec suggestion:

How about requiring that an aggressor corp must have at least one high sec POS, in order to wardec another corp? And, for an aggressor alliance, there must be at least one high sec POS per corp in the alliance.

If the POS(s) is destroyed (or otherwise removed), then the aggressor loses the war.

The defender corp/alliance would have no such requirement.

This provides the defender corp with a war target, which may encourage fights, and also prevents the aggressors from just hiding in station, when they are not able to outnumber the defenders.

Story-wise, it could be argued that Concord may sanction high sec wars, but also require that they be HQed from a player POS, and not from a neutral NPC station.

Well, i used "incentives" in a broad sense, both positive (more rewards elsewhere) or negative (less rewards or more risk in hisec).

The new wardec system is a failure in that it pretends to increase the risk in hisec (infinite griefing wars for 20 mililon a week and at agressor's will) for no gain, and actually encourages people to NOT play the game.

No I'm not. This is what posters like you are missing, it's all one game on one server. It isn't separate "leagues" or "fields" to carry on with the analogy.

Let me put it another way, if you want PvE completely free from interference from other players in EVE including non consensual PvP I will raise no objection assuming it has no impact on the rest of the game. You could earn LP to buy mods, implants, and ships that only function in that PvE environment and nowhere else! No ISK would be earned directly. That would be separate "fields" that would be in keeping with your stated desires while also being balanced with the rest of the game.

Since I'm critiquing, I might as well put my own suggestion forward which, in retrospect, is probably just an amalgamation of all the good ideas I've seen in this thread.

Cooldown refers to the time it takes before the party is no longer aggressable during a war. Cooldown immediately ends if the war ends.
Heat-up refers to the time it takes before a party can aggress during a war. Heat-up is immediately void if the war ends.

War process:
Aggressor declares war as normal and pays a weekly fee, with a 24-hour heat-up period before war starts.
Target can make it mutual at any time, at which point it becomes free for both.
Both parties can recruit/drop players during war but there is a 24-hour heat-up/one week cooldown period for those players.
Allies for target can be brought in at any time but suffer a 12-hour heat-up period.
Corporations at war cannot join an alliance.
A corporation that is a part of an alliance at war can drop at any time but is subject to a one week cooldown period.

Ways to end a war:
1. Either party surrenders, paying the other party a suitable sum (set by game, something like four times the current war fees, maybe?)
-- Surrendering party cannot be war dec'd (by anyone) or create a new war dec for a week after a surrender.
-- If target is at war with multiple aggressors the other parties are not affected by the no-war-decs-for-a-week clause.
-- Allies brought in by the target are not affected by target surrender (other than the war ending) and may go about their business.
-- Allies brought in by the target are not counted as a multiple aggressor in the case of aggressor surrender; the war simply ends.

2. Both parties agree to a cease-fire.
-- No restrictions on future war decs for either party.
-- Cease-fire could potentially be a contract type, involving an item exchange.

3. If no material loss for either party to the other within one week and war is not mutual, weekly dec cost increases.
-- Costs do not increase in any other manner.
-- Costs do not decrease if a later material loss is suffered.
-- Cost increase should not be astronomical, but should be incentive to end the war within a few weeks.

4. If weekly fee is not payed the war drops and the target cannot be war dec'd by the aggressor for one week, although this does not prevent others from deccing the target.

Note that mutual wars can only be ended through options 1 or 2, as 3 and 4 deal with weekly fees.

I'm not going to bandy costs, there are plenty of good suggestions that I've seen.

I would be fine with that, however, it's not gonna happen, and it's the same thing as splitting the server into a pve and a pvp server, in which case, they would both die out because they need each other's interaction via the market in order to survive.

My suggestions on the wardec system

---

My personal belief is still to make the cost to war dec reasonably high. 200 mil for corps, 400 mil for alliances, then charge an additional amount for the number of members the aggressing party out numbers the target party on a percentage based scale.
If you are outnumbered by the target party, or have equal numbers, then you pay base amount.

Surrenders should be determined by the players through agreements in both costs and duration of peace.

Anyone acting in a war who is not legally part of the war is CONCORDED. This means if you are in a fleet with members of a party at war and the two parties engage each other, if you put out any type of support, be it ewar, remote eccm, boost, logistics. etc. etc. then you become criminally flagged and are popped REGUARDLESS of aggression counters against the opposing fleet/s.

Logistics should receive aggression counters when performing logistics, so they're locked out of gates and stations just like everyone else, and the same should go for boosters.

in a mutual war, the costs of war are reduced to 0 and both sides are free to recruit new members/corp but are not allowed to join an alliance if they're not already in one.

If the target party recruits a mercs, than the aggressing party should be freely allowed to recruit the same number of new members or mercs.

If the target party joins an alliance, it refreshes the war to 1 week with no fee on the agressors part.

Any corp leaving an alliance that is involved in a war retains that war for the remaining duration of that week, and the opposing party is able to choose whether they wish to keep them wardecced after the end of the current cycle, but must pay seperately from the alliance they're war deccing.
The same goes for individual players leaving a corp/alliance, except they cannot be wardecced after the duration of a war has ended. So a player leaving a corp after a war has begun will still be a war target for the remaining duration of that week.


There are probably some other suggestions that can be thrown in there, but for the most part this helps to balance the system a bit in favor of both parties.