Player Features and Ideas Discussion

though technically you are correct, everyone defaults to the "2 people fighting" definition, since "player vs player" makes every MMO a pvp by virtue of it's market.

There's no middle ground presented in this argument.

It's either open kills via wardecs, or it's no kills without having been killed.

I have an idea and here are a few reasons for this suggestion.

1) Wardecs are favorable to the deccer. They get to choose their targets, and targets are typically determined weakness.
Very few people wardec strong targets.

2) Wardecs are typically used to score easy kills against non-aggressive targets.

3) The surrender option is typically so extravagant that most targets could not and/or would not even attempt to humor the idea.

4) The only option a target has, if not willing to fight directly, is to not log on. Not playing the game is not an suitable option.

5) Putting aside surrendering, there is no way for a target to end a war.

6) Most targets do not know mercs and/or can't afford mercs to fight alongside them. Most aggressors are aware of this by checking war histories, kms, and the age of the corp and/or its member. KMs give the aggressor quite a bit of knowledge of what their intended target typically does. If they have a ton of losses focused on PVE content, it's pretty much assured they're not going to fight back very hard, if at all.

7) Wardecs aren't that expensive considering. Actually, wardeccing favors attacking smaller targets, as it becomes more expensive to wardec larger targets. these smaller targets are typically less likely to fight back well.


With that in mind, here's my suggestions.

1) The cost of a wardec is balanced incorrectly. Right now, it's more expensive to wardec a large alliance than it is to wardec a 10 man corp. My suggestion - Base cost of 100mil.. Wardec will cost base when the number of aggressors is equal to the number of defenders. IE 10 in aggro corp, 10 in target corp. The cost is reduced by 5mil per number that DEFENDER outnumbers the aggressor to a minimum of 10mil. Price is increased by 5mil per number that ATTACKER outnumbers defender with no max.

2) Players cannot join the aggression corp/alliance once the wardec is declared. HOWEVER, players are free to join the defending corp, but refunds the aggression corp up to the point of the wardec costing nothing. it also resets the wardec back to start each time another player joins the defending corp.

3) If a player from a non-involved corp (including NPC) becomes involved in the war, via boosting, logi, or another active means, that character is CONCORDED. IMO, corps should not be supported with outside utility, apart from spies/neutral observation.

4) War Banner (place holder name) - A structure that must be placed in the home system of the target corp in order to declare war. The structure cannot be repaired, has no timers, but has strong HP. 3 versions. small medium and large.. Considerably more expensive to go up in size. Bigger size means more HP. Defender can immediately end the war upon destruction of this structure. (Anyone outside of either aggressor or defender corps/alliances will be CONCORDED if attempting to attack the Banner.. This might make suicide attacks viable, but costly as it will take significantly more cost in ships to take the structure down than the cost of the structure)

5) A reason to make wars mutual - a defender can make a war mutual via 2 options.
A) They can place their own War Banner, to which the aggressor must destroy within a set amount of time in order to keep the war going. In doing so, you refund the target corp their initial wardec cost, and if the structure is destroyed by the aggressor, it resets the war timer at no additional cost to the aggressor. - this method is intended to give defenders another option to force the aggressor to make a choice.

B) Defender can make the war mutual, without placing a War Banner. In doing so, the aggressor is refunded their war cost.
From that point on, the wardec no longer costs either aggressor nor defender. HOWEVER, the war cannot be ended by either aggressor nor defender without a mutual agreement to end the war. If this option is chosen, then aggressor can also pull down their War Banner, as it no longer serves a purpose.. Though, that is risky as the defender can camp it, and/or still destroy it so the aggressor loses some isk.

6) Mercs can no longer be hired by either side. However, the defender can freely join an alliance created by the mercs or create their own alliance to which the merc corp can join. Again, however, in doing so, you reset the war timer and refund the aggressor the cost of the wardec. I'm also considering that in doing so sets the war to a 2 week window, instead of 1.

7) The aggressor is forced to pay for the war each week, as long as their banner is up during any part of the week, even for 1 minute. This could mean that the defender could camp the structure, forcing the aggressor to come to them, and also keeping them trapped paying for their own war.

8) the banner is the indicator of the war being declared, and when it starts. It takes 24hrs to anchor, and 24 hrs to unanchor. Requires anchoring 5, and whatever other necessary skills. The structure is invulnerable while anchoring and unanchoring.

9) I also feel that the aggressor should be forced to leave the structure up for a set amount of time, in which it cannot be unachored. This keeps people from taking advantage of the invulnerability. Though, that would be a bit redundant, as the war is not active until the structure is fully anchored. the structure cannot be unachored during aggression timers. IE, they can't unanchor while it's being shot to keep from people waiting until it's almost dead to unanchor while it's being attacked.



As it sits now, aggressors dictate where the fight happens, thus forcing the defender into gate and station games that the aggressor typically controls. These new structures would change this by forcing the aggressor to defend their War Banner and/or attack the defenders Banner.

Rebalancing wardec fees to favour attacks against larger entities does seem like a good idea. I have to wonder though if it is not intentional on CCP's part to encourage players to form larger corps for safety because on the surface it seems like a strange design decision that they made. In any case, I would not be adverse to turning that on its head and making it easier to wardec larger corps. It would probably exacerbate the trade hub camping phenomenon though as wardeccers would have more targets coming to them, and less incentive to go off and hunt a small corporation doing industry somewhere.

Not going to happen. Players should always be free to leave and join corporations.

Unnecessary. Off-grid boosting is an issue everywhere which needs to be fixed just get rid of it and make on-grid boosters go suspect. Logi already go suspect which is enough of a penalty.

As I spent two pages explaining above this will never happen. This version is even less plausible than other proposals. How is it balanced or useful if I have to deploy a structure next to the station of my target, only to log in the next day to find the war is over because my opponents destroyed the structure while I slept? At the very, very least it would require timers so the aggressors could actually be online to defend it when vulnerable, but it honestly it will never happen.

Wardecs are needed to remove structures and that will take about a week. So wardecs will have to last a week - simple as that. CCP will never give you the ability to end a war as that hinders conflict and provides too much safety.

If you want attackers to defend something, then give them some structures that they want to use and will have to defend. There is plenty of room to make wars more interesting that way. But CCP is not going to offer war immunity as a prize for participating in a war. Eve is focused conflict and ending a war is the opposite of conflict.

I would think it is on purpose. It's so people can't perma dec groups like Uni or Brave or whatever the next newbie corp is for 2 mil a week.

For all your carebear crying in every thread, you can't imagine why reducing the cost of deccing people like that by 80% might be problematic?

The concern is that by making it cheaper to declare war on large groups as compared to small groups, the large groups would be perma-wardecced by every mercenary corp. Right now, such corps like Eve University and Brave Newbies receive some protection from wardecs because of scaling costs.

If we flip that as was proposed, there would be a disincentive to attack small corps while it would be open season on large ones.

On one hand the large groups are better able to defend themselves, so perhaps they should be the preferred target of wardeccers, but on the other hand CCP seems to want to encourage large social groups to form (which is also good if they ever want to move to low/nullsec) so perhaps costs should be left as is so wardecs continue to pressure smaller groups to join forces for mututal protection.

I think the real problem here is that I do get it. As for carebear crying, please explain to me how you came to this conclusion.

I stand corrected. Your analysis is laughable.

So first an apology. The most humorous part is where I though you said it was problematic for large groups to be permadecced. You didn't say that, the guy that called me a carebear did. So, now that I have read back and realise I had the two of you confused, I'd like to recind my analysis of your analysis.

Second - it should cost more for big to dec little.
1. Big will normally have more isk than little so it scales perfectly with average actual wallet size.
2. Big having 100+ war decs makes them meaningless turkey shoots in a few key areas of the game - this turkey shoot pvp is not fun for the agressors. I get that blowing things up is fun, but without challenge or meaning it isn't fun enough for me to call it fun.
3. Little getting curb stomped by a large and well funded alliance is not fun. It goes beyond just the losing of ships (though no one likes to lose a ship) as the meaningless kick in the junk is demoralizing to many.

Some side issues created by the current upside down costs. Meaningful war decs don't happen in some cases. Here's the example. Corp A is offended by corp B. Corp A wants to go to guns on Corp B to set everything right with the world. Sadly Corp A isn't dumb and they know that as soon as the dec goes in that Corp B is going to get flooded with mails soliciting assistance that ranges from free to several million isk. Corp A being not able to fend of hundreds of tools in the current war dec corps decides not to engage Corp B as it would be a losing gambit.

It's all just gone wrong. Corp B can run all over new eden being asshats knowing that as soon as someone decs them a large number of folks will join thier cause just for the targets. I've seen a large number of dec assist mails and none of them (THAT'S NONE OF THEM) ask about any of the particulars as to the reason for the war dec, because it just doesn't matter any more.

So good corps trying to play eve right and solve issues with their guns get steam rolled by the current system.

Scale the cost the old way AND limmit the number of concurrent agressive acts a corp can have sanctioned by concord. Limit the sum of initiated war decs and assists to 10.


These 2 things together will allow meaning and purpose to come back into HS war decs. Meaning and purpose bring fun, excitement and the ability for Corp A to truly provide consequences to Corp B without getting steam rolled by a big war dec that could care less about what's actually going on.

You seriously turned that into Grr Goons?