EVE General Discussion

Okay, thousands of potential targets. And this is the first you've mentioned it.
In any case, it's hard to argue that the old wardec system heavily incentivised station hub camping large alliances while other reasons to wage war in highsec fell into such decline that suicide ganking became the highsec PVP of choice. The problem is that while CCP disincenvised suicide ganking by increasing mining barge EHP, and disincentivised the 'trade hub camping' wardec system by introducing scaling costs to wardecs depending on the defender's alliance size, and patched up some of the more egregious problems of neutral alts in combat, they failed to fix it so that highsec wardecs are able to effectively resolve conflicts over resources like trade routes, asteroid belts, manufacturing slots, research POSs, etc. Without some method of inflicting loss upon a defender who refuses to defend himself, highsec wardecs are going to continue to fail to deliver the meaningful player-created content that CCP is counting on to truly hook new highsec players into EVE Online.

No, way, CCP's much improved wardec system was supposed to breathe life into an old, much abused and/or ignored game mechanic, reviving highsec pvp as a way for genuine player-driven interaction.

Where did it all go wrong ~~

Has there been an actual explanation from CCP about why the SAME WAR costs the smaller entity up to 1000% more to declare than the larger entity?

Just curious. I've looked and I can't find it.

If you can't afford 500m to declare war on someone then you probably don't have the assets or ability to effectively fight a war with them to begin with.

But but but you can do nothing but sit in Jita and insta-gib pods like this guy

How's that for content?

The heart of the issue is that CCP got it in their heads that wardec cost equals paying for targets.

Convince them that this is wrong, and you might get somewhere. But as long as this mentality remains, there's no hope of change.

EDIT: Also, by making your post about GSF, you simply made it too easy to make points about 'just fight them in nullsec'. It would have been better to leave it neutral.

The war dec cost should be based on a formula that determines the average number of real targets in high sec. For example:

Alliance A has 2000 members who base out of null/low/unknown space, but are only averaging 50 members daily for a week that are in high sec. To war dec the entire alliance A, it is the cost of war decing 50 people.

Alliance B who base out of high sec has 50 members and are averaging 50 members daily for a week in high sec. To war dec the entire alliance B, it is the cost of war decing 50 people.

So it cost the same for each alliance and both offer the same number of targets. Also make war decs follow the players till the end of the week cycle and prohibit players who are in NPC corps from flying freighters, jump freighters and the Orca and presto, a war dec system that works.

Well, maybe, needs some more tweaks, but there you have it.

Hmm, interesting.

Don't forget a wardec lets you shoot people in lowsec without worry of the gate guns. Given that the guns are supposed to be ... stronger, you shouldn't just write off that benefit.

Adding some fraction of lowsec targets (maybe 1/5 ?) would be useful.

Yeah that is a problem too. Not really at a spot to really think about how to resolve it. It would be nice if there was more than one way to skin this cat. Would exploring other options to initiate a war dec that does not involve ISK?

Ah yes, the booster alts and the neutral repper alts.

PvP in highsec has never been more full of options to have a "1v1"