Assembly Hall

You do know that this is an exploit?

A character doing this must undergo a session-change--gate-jump, dock/undock, eject/re-board a ship, etc--before attacking their new war-target, otherwise it's petitionable, and possibly bannable, IIRC.

I misremember the exact source, but I think there was a dev-blog or a GM-post about it somewhere.

I've been reading this thread over and over, and I've been thinking about the implications of the proposed changes. I have to say, I am still very excited about what is to come. People are worried that the little guys are going to get picked on, and I believe that is probably true. But you have to remember that Eve adapts and its important to try and think ahead to how people will adapt to the proposed changes before declaring them broken.

There are already "No Obligation" alliances, where you can simply join to get a common chat channel and some company in high-sec. These are going to get very common, so the little guy can be protected. A simple solution and it will become "the thing to do" for new corps. It will force interaction which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing.

As for it becoming difficult for the aggressors because of people being able to infinitely bring in support, well I think it should be difficult and risky for the aggressors. Besides, there is always room for Guerrilla warfare. You don't need to outnumber your opponent to be a problem.

Having said all the above, I am in favor of a price system that takes into account aggressors and defenders sizes and skill points in comparison to each other and scales so that the price per person goes down in the extremely high levels such as in the big sov alliances.

Sorry, it's too much for any small scale merc/griefer action.
Paying a wardec fee that is almost the cost of a small POS ? It sounds wrong to me.

Ahahaha !
That's a ******* huge immunity to wardecs.

Tell me how GSF (or any other big entity) is supposed to recruit.

No.
First, the real mercs are mostly the ones wardeccing people, not defending people from a wardec. It will dramatically increase their prices (and mines), reducing the numbers of contracts.
It has nothing to do with "taking carebears under their wing". And I really don't see the link between this and an increase in the wardec fees.

I highly doubt it.

1) If you are wardec'd, and you join an alliance, the alliance must accept your war before you can join. If you then leave, that alliance remains a wartarget for the rest of the week. If the war is renewed, it is renewed against you and any alliance you may happen to be in when it is renewed, not your former alliance.

2) If you are a corp in an alliance that is wardec'd, and you leave, you are still a wartarget for the rest of the week. If the war is renewed, it is renewed against the target alliance only.

3) If you are a player in a corp/alliance that is at war, and you leave the corp to join a non-NPC corp, the corp must accept your war before you can join. If you then leave, the corp remains a wartarget for the rest of the week.

4) If you are a player in a corp/alliance that is at war, and you leave the corp to join an NPC corp, you remain a war target for the rest of the week. If the war is renewed, it is renewed against your former corp, not against you, and not against your new corp.

5) If you are at war, and you invite someone to your fleet, that person must accept your war before joining. Once that person joins, he or she is a wartarget until downtime. This addresses fleet boosters.

6) You cannot invite someone to your fleet if that person is involved in a war you are not involved in. Join that person's fleet instead and agree to participate in his or her war.

7) No per-person costs if the target corp/alliance has more members than you. There is a base cost for all declarations, plus a cost for corps/alliances considered "more powerful" to declare on "lesser powerful" corps/alliance: the cost is related to the total SP costs of both parties. Mutual/accepted wardec's refund the full cost of the initial wardec, if any. Mutual wars last until both sides agree to cancel. If one side cancels but the other does not, the other side begins paying wardec fees to continue the war.

8) There is a fee, based on total SP, for each person or entity that joins the war outside of the original wardec. If you invite a non-wartarget to your fleet, you must pay for that person's entrance into the war for the day. If you join a corp, that corp must pay to enter the war. If your corp joins an alliance, that alliance must pay to enter the war. The only free ride is to join the NPC corp (and you're still a wartarget anyway). You can still conduct business as usual during wartime, but with an added cost.

9) Leave the ally system in place, but add a cost per #8.

Neutral RR: Neutral RR is a little different, in that it applies during wartime and due to various circumstances.

10a) No neutral RR. You pay wardec fees so that Concord will let you wage war, or you have been awarded kill rights exclusively. A neutral entity has not paid those fees or received any rights, so the neutral is not allowed to participate. If you want to participate, join one of the warring corps if it is wartime. If you try to participate as a "neutral", you meet the business end of Concord.

10b) Alternatively, you are neutral RR and you help one side. That other side OF THAT PARTICULAR BATTLE then receives kill rights on you. Each person present. They have 30 days (or however kill rights last now) to exact their vengeance.

This provides penalties for both sides during wars. If you try to evade the war, you're going to carry it with you for a time. This throws the hisec griefers a bone. It also ensures that everyone who participates in some way with the parties at war becomes involved in the war, at least for a time. And participating in the war is not free, beyond being the corp/alliance who is wardec'd initially, because you're paying/bribing Concord and they have doughnut fees they need to cover.

The costs also make it possible for each side to determine just how much they want to invest in the war, a little at a time. You'll probably find that the total payouts for the war are much higher than if you charged a huge up-front cost. It's the way that (true) microtransaction systems work.

Whatever solution is chosen for neutral RR, there MUST be a penalty for it, and it MUST be more than "oh, you can shoot me for the next 15 minutes". You can see how well that has worked out. Neutral RR must weigh the benefits of providing that service against the potential risks. Right now, there are no risks. Personally, I'm leaning toward 10b, as it invites more fighting and sounds easier to implement.


These are just rules for waging war in hisec. Concord polices hisec, not players. The empires rule hisec, not Nullsec alliances. When in hisec, you play by Concord and Empire rules, regardless of who you are. If it is too expensive or annoying or whatever for nullsec alliances to make a formal war declaration in hisec, then don't do it.

Also, if you are a big fish, you should expect a lot of little fish to try to nip at your fins. It's the cost of being a big fish.


Thoughts? What have I missed? Some of these things exist already, but I wanted to present a complete package.

In favor with everything what op said i will like to add one more thing - the cost to open the corp is ridiculous low. Correct me if i'm wrong but i think the price is around 1.5-2m. So with new changes in war mechanics will not change most of the tactics of highsec corporation used to avoid the war.
We all know most of the macro/cheat/bot/whatever corporations and many others have a ceo and all other members with no roles. What that means - if you declare war now you will end up with 50+ mil to pay for the war with a corporation what doesnt exist the same sec war is ready to start. All what they have to do:
- members leave the corp (no roles no waiting)
- ceo resign
- open new corp
- ?????
- profit
All job done in less then a minute.

CCP seriously think they care for not be able to joinn back the same corp for 7 days? No ofc, they dont want and they dont care for the old corporation. Why should they, the new one is so cheap there is no point to go back, just make new one. Ofc on other side the guys who declare the war will remain with $hitty taste in the mouth thanks to another fail solution from fail ccp factory.

Lets be honest... the price for the alliance is 1 bil. so why not make the price for the corp 100 mil.? Frankly 100 mil. right now is not too much for the corporation and for anyone who will complain how new players will not be able to create corporations after 7 days in EvE - yeah, that is the point. Join some existing and after x amount of time if you want get out and make your own corporation.

At least the guys who will declare the war can have some sort of satisfaction - they pay 50+ mil for the war and if other one run away they must pay 100 mil. for the new one. Is not too much for people who run missions 24/7 but at least is not f@*ing 2 mil.

No matter what solution gets picked, it's convoluted and difficult to track. You're exchanging one method to enforce wardec "victim" status for another. I'd even go so far as to say that sticking with the original war deadlines is much simpler to understand and maybe easier to implement. You are even invoking arbitrary restrictions that have little reason for existing except to satisfy some convoluted and difficult-to-track system :)

There should be no restrictions to corp membership. In no way should we tell someone they can't leave or join a corporation at any time whatsoever. Instead, there should be actions and consequences. They should be able to do so, but they should not be able to escape their "obligations" by doing so. Whoever shelters the individual/corp also assumes those obligations.

The goal is to make people consider whether it is worth accepting the new member while the war is ongoing, or to wait for the war to end. At any given time, either possibility may exist. And if you read the whole post as one unified document, you'll notice that accepting the warring member into your corp/alliance will come at a monetary cost. You will pay to enter that war; it's not a free ally.


The first part I disagree with. If you fleet up with someone, you are specifically agreeing to work in coordination with that person or group. If that group is at war, you're implicitly contributing to that war and have chosen sides. In a war with USA vs USSR, if I ran fleet "neutral" maneuvers with USSR, the USA would NOT take very kindly to it and would consider it an act of war, and vice versa.

I agree with the second part, though we disagree on just what should get transferred :)


This is in reference to the proposed group war transfer mechanics. I should not be able to add someone to my fleet and thus force a war on everyone else without their consent, nor should everyone be required to consent to a group member addition. Requiring the warring member to do the inviting changes the dynamic of the "Yes, I agree" consent to the war. If that mechanic is not chosen for implementation, this paragraph is meaningless.


Honestly, the way CCP described it shouldn't have even made it to a dev blog. But it's not the first time they've had an idea that fell flat :)

Look back at what I wrote about costs in #8 and then read #9 about the allies. You pay for each addition to the war, much like you pay for Mercs now. It also implies the possibility for the aggressor to add allies as well; again, at a cost. This benefits both sides equally, draws more people into the war for the potential of destroyed assets, and liquidates excess ISK flooding the economy.

This is also a companion to the above points where people might want to involve others in the war (with consent) by corp/alliance hopping. Instead of forcing some obnoxious employment history dance, just let them involve others outright. For a price. Each week.


First, it absolutely does include neutral RR in non-wartime situations, if you'll re-read what I wrote. The person you are neutral-ganking will gain killrights on you. If I canflip Bob in my PvP HAC and have you as my neutral RR backup, and Bob decides to retaliate with his mining Osprey, the moment your neutral RR cycle begins, Bob gains killrights on you. I didn't include before, but you should have to agree to accept the consequences of your neutral RR actions (you should be able to toggle this warning).

We may disagree on this, but neutral RR is a stain on Hisec pvp. My personal opinion is that it is the domain of cowards to employ this when many times they don't even need it because they're attacking industrials or mission-runners anyway. It removes the risk from PvP.

If you and I have declared war against one another, we are fighting a Concord-sanctioned war. Any participating neutrals are interfering in what Concord has approved. There should be a cost, and thus a formal entry into the war, or there should be stiff penalties in order to remain neutral. I disagree that the current model is "fine" :)

But again, like everything else, neutral RR can and should be a possibility. You can spring it on your targets at any time, without warning, much like suicide ganking. If that mining Osprey does manage to get that PvP HAC into structure, neutral RR should be able to save it. But there should be a risk and there should be consequences.

Wouldn't this create a lot of database stress if applied to some large alliance in the process of disbanding (happens all the time)? You'll definitely have a lot corp-to-player aggressions to calculate.

There is no griefing in eve unless specified by the devs. Declaring war on someone is not "griefing", its a legitimate pvp player interaction. Whoever came up with the term griefing needs to be shot.

Oh well theres always DUST 514, corp infilitration and killing and suicide ganking. I suggest people turn to those methods in the future instead of using the war declaration system.

0