EVE Information Portal

So... all in all... CCP is going to **** up this game for majority of its players.

Could have fooled me, all of your examples seem to be from the POV of mission runners.


No fight in EVE is on even terms. What you're saying is that the dude who popped me during a "1v1" in low-sec gate shouldn't have brought his Tengu booster and Falcon alts along to hedge his bets, or that the alliance leader holding sov null shouldn't use as many people as possible to squash an invasion, or that a ganker corp shouldn't bring enough Tornados to finish off the freighter because that just wouldn't be fair.


Risk adverse in the sense that you feel entitled to be in a player corp without fighting for that right.


And yet you seem to be advocating less risk and some shoddy mechanic that dictates how and where the war should be fought, hopefully in a set-piece battle where everything is "fair". That's not EVE.

Under the old system you could conceivably have your corp/alliance perma-decced out of existence. If that isn't putting it all on the line, I don't know what is. The new system, with the ability to bring in allies to fight alongside you and mutual war, gives you more tools to defend yourself and turn the tables on the aggressor. If you can't do that then you will lose. That is the the way of war since time immemorial.

They clearly haven't changed their minds because Soniclover still talks about the cost scaling formula as if cost scaling is something that should exist even though everyone pretty much universally agrees shouldn't.

Seeing as e-uni officially announced their new anti-wardec policy this week it should be even more apparent that it is completely unacceptable for players to have any means under their control to affect the cost of declaring war against them and that cost scaling unfairly protects people who do not need protection.

The strong should be fair game, not just the weak.

I have no problem with cost scaling as long as it's determined in a manner that suits everyone and not just corps with larges numbers.

My suggestion again is 200 and 400 mil for a wardec.
These are actually quite reasonable prices that are quite affordable, but also somewhat more protective prices, where as 20 and 50 mil are way too cheap and some suggestions like 1 billion and 2 billion are way too expensive.

Now, interms of the manner to which cost scaling is based, I would suggest that the cost scale based off the number of members that the aggressor outnumbers the target by.

However, there's probably still ways for cost scaling could be taken advantage of, such as you have an alliance that outnumbers the target 2 to 1 so you break up into 2 groups and then wardec for a much cheaper price.

So, when you factor price scaling, it's complicated to establish without several loop holes and the only way to counter them would be the same as countering baiting in noob systems, howevr, it's unfair to the aggressor to determine it by the number of members in the target party which can also be unfair to smaller parties.

So, perhaps we should go with a high standard cost 400mil and 800 mil, but then the price can be reduced if the target party own a POS to 200 and 400, and if they own SOV then the price is reduced to 100 and 200.

Again though, there's a lot of contraversy that comes with any suggestion.

Everything sounds great to me save one potential issue that muddies it (I see some here share my general concern if not this one specifically) and that is the potential of aggressed corps to contract corps of "padding" alts to increase the war maintenance cost. Essentially wouldn't it be possible to have corps stacked with inactive alts to offer themselves to alliances or on a character basis to drive up the apparent number of corp/alliance members, thus increasing the aggressors cost of maintaining the war? I saw in this FF talk that CCP expressed opposition to the idea of alt padding, but it was a brief mention in passing, and this specific behavior was not addressed.

Anyone know

And you as a griefer should be able to dec with nothing of real value at stake? makes a lot of sense. Why not just remove highsec?

Administrative costs. Your wardec needs to be distributed to all CONCORD ships in space, you know.

Cost should include an imbalance factor, something based on ABS (aggressors total SP - defenders total SP) . This would penalise extremely imbalanced wars, which are either done to get killmails off noobs or disrupt the economics of large corps with minimal force projection.

The cheapest war should be an even fight.

Are you replying to me, or just replying - I never mentioned figures.

That's how CCP does game design. They take a sideways glance what is going on in the game, decide it needs to change without even trying to determine why the state of the game is the way it is then jam in a pile of badly conceived game mechanics, then they leave them like that for a decade in spite of constant complaints from the userbase.

I mean, we all loved dominion sov right?