EVE Information Portal

Good spot on that one, have to re-think it. Thanks.

As for the rest:

The idea is that the target can recruit allies at any time, and they can join the war after 12 hours. Maybe extending that to 24 hours would be a better balance. I don't like the idea of allowing the aggressor to recruit mercs because that gives way too much advantage to the aggressor.


Ideally the war costs are accrued by the corporation rather than the CEO, so I'm not sure where you're going with the alt corp thing. I like the cooldown on costs for re-deccing the same corp.

Problem with any war dec mechanics is you have to satisfy the PvPers, the "carebears with teeth" (dumbass title, IMO, but I don't have a better one), and the people who shouldn't be playing the game (pussies hiding behind CONCORD who don't want risk).

FYI soz this is a huge wall-o-txt, started off small but branched out quite indiscriminately!

was wondering bout this wardec discussion and considering the amount of potential abuse to a system there could be in order for an aggressor to gain an advantage over the defender, it is difficult to come up with a perfect solution straight out of the box, but i had a few suggestions for people to consider:

1. taylor the cost of war decs to increase exponentially with time
2. taylor the cost of war decs to be ONLY dependant on the number of active members in each party that have been part of said parties for 6 months or more.
3. start with a singular price for a war dec when each party is equal in size (1:1 ratio)
4. introduce multiplyers on that cost based on size of each party based on 6 month membership count (where the aggressors member count is divided by the defenders member count) so that a large aggressor pays a high cost against a small defender and vice versa.
5. add additional modifiers to the cost based on the number of corporations have set each party positive standings towards based on those corporations active 6 month member counts, and an additional modifier on the length of time those standings have been in place.
6. any additional member increase since the war dec starts is included as a additional to the multiplyer

yes pretty complex and yes there is the fact technically one party may be able to ascertain how active a war targets corp/alliance is, but with additional clauses comes an additional veil of uncertainty. and adding modifiers that take into account standings duration, its guarded against a form of dec shielding.

With this system an aggressor corp would pay through the roof if they fought a smaller corp whilst having an extensive blue list, and with the blue list being controlled by other entities, the aggressor isnt totally in control. Plus any kind of reverse dec shield would open up a host of friend or foe issues to the corps blueing up the aggressors.

so the calculation would look something like this:

((( 2^w ) / 2 ) * c ) * (( a + ( b1 * ( 7 / bd1 )) + n1 ) / ( d + b2 * ( 7 / bd2 ) + n2 ))

w = number of weeks the war dec has been active for
c = default cost of a war dec

a = aggressors member count (based on minimum 6 months membership)
b1 = sum of aggressors blue list corps/alliances member count (based on minimum 6 month membership)
bd1 = sum of total number of days all corps/alliances have had blue standings towards the aggressor
n1 = aggressors new corp members since last paid war dec bill.

d = defenders member count (based on minimum 6 month membership)
b2 = sum of defenders blue list corps/alliances member count (based on minimum 6 month membership)
bd2 = sum of total number of days all corps/alliances have had blue standings towards the defender
n2 = defenders new corp members since last war dec bill paid by aggressors.

also considering some mechanic saying you cannot war dec another corp/alliance until you have at least 7 members in your corp with active accounts that have been in the corp for 6 months or more. (based on 3 toons per account and that most eve players have at least 2 accounts)

and yes if this has just given u a migrane, i apologise!

I read that one actually. I think that proposal was far too unrealistic to be considered a real proposal. I kind of see where you are going with it though and even independently had a passing idea along those lines about a different currency in hisec.

A game mechanic once implemented however applies to everyone, and everyone follow the rules regardless of context. In EVE due to its sanboxy nature, people not only graduate from the noob island but they could also easily be kicked back to the noob island due to big losses.

Would you agree that its possible that lets say you and your friend gathered some capital, setup a lowsec pos, then your corp got wiped out, you lost all caps, you lost your poses, everything. You are down to 5m isk in your wallet and you can't upgrade your clone. Now you are also wardecced and hunted in hisec. Or you are a new player and you get wardecced and can't get off your feet. The only solution is to either quit EVE or to drop out to NPC corp so you can't play with your friends.

How much sense does this make? Hisec is there so that you can recover from situations like these. You might say, you should've had reserve capital and its your own fault you messed up so bad. But that's not an acceptable argument. WIthout protected hisec it would be possible to effectively have permanent death in EVE or force people into permanent calculated inaction (also "wonderful"). That would definitely make a lot of people quit the game, i think that's pretty obvious. This is fairly obvious stuff to you right?

A safe recovery/permagriefing protection mechanism is REQUIRED in order for the game to function.

Now, why exactly should you be allowed to be griefed out of a player corp and forced to recover solo? That makes no sense.

This is a very realistic scenario that in my mind makes wardecs in proposed form (involuntary mandate to engage pilots and poses in hisec) completely unacceptable from a sane game design perspective. If there is one such scenario, it just happens to invalidate the whole idea. The wardec idea just doesn't work because of this. This is why i was suggesting to only allow to wardec and engage POSes effectively.

For many people hisec is the way because they tried low and failed. Someone is always better than you at PVP. So they take a calculated risk - that is as low of a risk as possible. Maybe because they are not as good at PVP as others, more likely beucase they don't have a tight group of friends or just can't afford to lose the ships at a rate it's required to get better at PVP. When you are up against an organized fleet of highly skilled and isk risk optimized fleet such as drakes or canes or whatever is the FOTM it's very very hard to be better than the existing groups that played together for years. So you are proposing to force people into continuous losses? That's just not going to work. You can't force people to PVP. EVE is about calculated risk. You calculated your risk and declared the war. They knowing their strengths and weaknesses calculated theirs and decided not to engage. The decision making process is identical and it's hypocritical to say that you have to PVP. No, you don't have to PVP. As a matter of fact this game is mostly about avoiding engagements, not about engagements. Wardecs are not going to change any of this.

Agani, thats where my earlier tournament based PVP proposal ties in. People will fight because they'll have a decent chance. Otherwise they simply wouldn't fight.

This is a good idea on paper but can be exploited by aggressors dropping out of wardeccing corp and making a new corp and redeccing, so in order for it to work something else would have to be done. You can't lock in the aggeressors into the corp permanently once they lost control of the war.

Uh.. that's just incorrect. You can and have to design a game mechanic without holes. We already have a game mechanic with holes, why get a new one with new holes? Look at CONCORD - CONCORD cannot be evaded once it comes. That's a game mechanic that generally has no holes. CCP nailed that one down so it's possible to nail this too.

WH space maybe, sov null has its own rules.

As far as POS shoots, I've read enough from both CCP and major null sec players to understand that structure grinds are boring and that people don't want to do them. Frankly, I wouldn't want to sit through one even though I was prepared for just that to help a friend take down a high-sec tower for his own (sucks that the other corp was a bunch of wussies...)

High-sec corps don't need artificial objectives, those should be set by the players. If you are in a war and won't fight back, drop to an NPC corp; it's pretty obvious you couldn't hack it in a player corp or you need more friends.

+1. That's one lengthy and sensible exposition as of why wardec is broken and the proposed change will just break it further.

People in hisec do have a good reason to be there, mostly based on a risk/reward ratio. Preventing them to play by opposing them to unsourmountable odds without a way out is not gonna take EVE anywhere.

Wardecs are supposed to allow the conquest of POS slots and fight consensual PvP in hisec. Well then, make the mechanics so they allow this and only this. There's enough venues for unconsensual PvP and griefing without a need to add a "free grief voucher" in the guise of specific game mechanics.

Depending on how you define a "blob", blobs already exist in high sec, not just for POS bashing.

Until CCP introduces some sort of diminishing return penalty on fleet sizes, the bigger blob tactic will remain as simply the most effective brute force method for winning a fight in Eve.

I don't like it, either, but, hey, there you go....

Besides, I also suggested nerfing high sec POSes, so that they will be easier to take down. Specifically, I suggested disallowing large towers and ECM/damps in high sec POSes.

I gather that you assume all war decs are done for the sole purpose of griefing? There couldn't possibly be other reasons, like taking down an offending POS, denying resources, disrupting null-sec supply lines, or pretty much anything else? It's pretty much impossible to argue this sort of thing with the risk-adverse because they refuse to think outside their own little box

As to your other points, they're not worth arguing until corp-hopping and other ******** mechanics are fixed. Camping the aggressors into a station with your friends is a valid tactic if they can't corp-hop, and recruiting mercs to help you do that under the new system may make aggressors think twice. Unfortunately, the risk-adverse refuse to think in terms of how to hurt the enemy back and instead cry about their rights. If you are unwilling to defend your stuff, you don't deserve it, so the saying goes. Drop to an NPC corp and hide

The discussion here shouldn't be about how to tie people into lame structure grind objectives or provide easy ways out of unwanted wars, it should be about how to facilitate you defending your stuff and hurting the other guy. CCP has some decent ideas and there are plenty of other sandboxy ideas in this thread, all that is really needed are better ways to prevent aggressors and defenders from avoiding the wars they're in (and by avoiding, I mean not dropping corp, scraping decs, dec-shielding, etc...)

Nope, I agree that there are non-griefing reasons to wardec. I never said there were not.


Ok, let's assume that corp-hopping and other ******** mechanics are fixed. Let's even say that we can't use undock BMs to escape the station.

Now, let's assume that my aggressor corp has 100 members and your defender corp has 20 members.

How exactly do you plan to keep everyone in my corp pinned in a dozen or more stations? And, how much do you think it will cost you to recruit enough mercs to do this station camping for you (esp. given that it is right up there with POS bashing as being one of the most boring things to do in the game)? My 100 man corp is probably richer than your 20 man corp, and since I knew I was going to wardec you, my wallet is going to be prepared to keep the wardec running for a long, long time.

Finally, let me flip this all around on you. As the defender, except for station camping, what other strategies do you have for fighting back? Be specific. How are you going to get the aggressor to show up for a fight on even terms? How exactly do you "hurt the other guy", while "defending your stuff"?


I really don't get your point, about risk-adversion.

High sec PVP corps are used to shield mission running, mining, hauling and other such activities. Players keep their non-PVP alts and assets in non-PVP player or NPC corps, specifically so that they will not be subject to a wardec declared by the PVP corp.

Isn't this risk-adversion, too? The aggressor PVP corp isn't defending its stuff - it is hiding it from the wardec. So, why is risk-adversion ok for the aggressor, but not ok for the defender?

Personally, I believe that both parties should have to put it all on the line. Don't you agree?