Jita Park Speakers Corner

As seen in the post below Some potential changes were suggested and never implemented. With the inferno changes they made some good changes to the war mechanics, However this opened up a few problems,

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/War-dec_mechanics_(CSM)


1. War is very one sided It always favors the aggressor. There is no objectives to the current wardec system Thus leading to a never ending war scenario, Pay the bill war never ends.

2. There is no max war cap, This opens up the eve world to alliances that do nothing but high sec piracy and can do it for a fee pay off concord and gank and grieving till your heats content. The war mechanic was never intended to neutralize concord. So in theory A alliance with deep enough pockets could war every corp in eve and kill anyone they wanted (except noob corps)

3 There is no cool down between a dec ending and re decing a new one from the same group. (Thus making surrender for isk useless)

4. If you have a Aliance war dec your logi from across corps can not cap chain without triggering a supect flag (bug???)

5. War duration does nothing to the cost (mutual wars should not have this effect)

I may have missed a few things and I know people are going to flame and have conflicting opinions but I wanted to start a discussion

2. "The war dec mechanic was never intended to neutralize concord" Actually that's exactly what it's supposed to do. ( It does work as intended however there is no limit on the wardecs they can have open hence rendering concord completely useless if used for ganking and with the new cost model its actualy cheep .



4. Pretty sure they can. (It does generate a supect flag as even if the alliance is deced it considers them as separate wars so its the same as if you were helping a ganker. try it your self.

1. Attacker is at a disadvantage - Depends Alliances like whors in space can effectively just keep all of empire deced and gank at will no allies want anything to do with that bastard mix


3. Surrender imposes a substantial minimum ceasefire period where the attacker cannot redec the defender. This can be gotten around by alts/alt corps, but then again so can any mechanic (including the defender "getting out" of the original war).

( I have not seen anywere the time that is the cooldown from most posts it says there is no cool down please show were this is)


5. Is there any reason it should? there used to be a war multiplyer that incressed the cost per war dec I don't think that mechanic exists any more (perpetual wardec is legitment harassment if its one sided and don't give a solid player experance ) so there should be a maximum eather defined my incress in cost resulting in a cool down that lowers the cost or a max amount of wars threashold eather way would give limits to the amount of eve players that can be ganked at one time.

Don't get me wrong I think the war mechanic works preety good better that the old crap, but has no limitations on it. I think suffers overall.

Welcome to warfare, it's exactly the same in real life, the strong pick on those that they perceive as weak, although it backfires on the aggressor sometimes. You'd be stupid to start a war against someone that you know is going to hand your arse to you on a plate.

Why would people initiate wars if they didn't think they were going to win them? What's the incentive?

Its called making it unfun to be at war with you, can be done in 2 ways.

1. every one leaves the corp

2. go some where else for a week (wormhole, 0.0)

3. kill them all

good post right there

You're absolutely right. The key issue here is that an "incentive to fight back" is semantically equivalent to "something to lose for not fighting back". And in my experience people like the OP are implaccably opposed to any such mechanic.

Let's suppose we replace wardec fees with a new mechanic such that CONCORD require a "War Bond" to be posted by all corps; any corp who wants to declare war against another corp has to match their "War Bond". If either corp surrenders or meets some other equivalent surrender conditions (eg: reduced to 1 or fewer members on active subscribed accounts), then the bond is forfeited to the other side (after which they will have to post a new bond, which they might choose to set at a different level). Until then, the war continues. A corp can have as many open wardecs as they like, but they have to post a bond for each war and they don't get the money back until the target corp meets the surrender condition.

With this mechanic, the aggressors have an incentive to pick their targets carefully; the defenders have an incentive to fight.

If corps post a very low bond, then they'll have little to lose, but on the other hand, they make it cheap for aggressors to try their luck. Corps that post huge bonds will raise the threshold for attackers as high as they like, but the prize will be correspondingly huge. Very rich players might choose to "honeytrap" wardeccers into wasting their money by creating corps that seem like an easy target and have large bonds, and then simply never surrendering the war (If I have 100 billion ISK and you, my enemy, have 20 billion ISK, then my spending 10 bill to make you lose 10 bill is money well spent. The bounty system works on just this basis.)

This mechanic fulfills the requirements you (and the OP) have set but I can promise you that nothing like it would be accepted by him.

The cost of that "invulnerability" would literally be the prize.

yea lets have 0.0 alliances run around empire totaly immune to war decs what a awesome idea!

Sandbox is sandbox.

So stop forcing your risk adverse ideas on to the rest of us, war decs are the least broken thing in eve.

I'm literaly unable to find words to describe how bad your idea is, unless you think raising 15t+ isk to go at war with 0.0 alliance sounds "fun" or "engaging"