EVE General Discussion

Woah, guys. Epic flashback too 2004. Follow me back to the 1st fanfests.

All of these changes were introduced by hilmar in 2004. I remember, I was there. Why it stayed on the back burner for so long....

...

Oh ! And remember eve used to have s page that listed all current, future, and big dream feature lists. Why can't we have the cool future plans page ?? So we can keep up with what you guys are seeing coming up some day soon

Well this talk he just gave us, was that old 2004 proposal.. I wonder why it took them so long to bring it to light? It was promised in 2005 by the latest, and only now it might be happening? We'll see what happens.

On balance I like it.

Whats the situation with alliance on alliance warfare though in terms of declaration costs do we know?

I have mixed feelings here.

War is about objectives. Wardecs still haven't any objectives other than metagaming ie extorsion, pvp or plain grief.

In my opinion Corporations should choose to commit into the War system by gaining access to certain ISK faucets and facilities or stay in a neutral status by renouncing those goodies.

One of the main advices given to new players is to join a corporation, but for a large part of hisec corporations wardecs are periods where they're strongly encouraged not to undock. I can't see this changing with the new system.

What about inactive accounts?

I want to repeat myself: the cost of war should scale inversely with member size. A large corporation declaring war against a small one should be paying proportionally more than a small corporation declaring war on a large one. Just thing about it, it makes perfect sense. A large corporation declaring on a small one creates quite an imbalance, and should pay more to make up for the extreme numerical superiority it possesses. A small corporation should pay less because it is taking on a more difficult target, and because under the proposed system, taking on very large targets will be virtually impossible from a financial standpoint.

Also, have they mentioned removing the 3-war-limit from corporations?

Hmm. This seems contradictory.

The subject of trial and inactive characters came up during the Q&A at the end. The Dev agreed that trial accounts shouldn't be counted in working out the total but I don't recall whether or not he said anything about inactive characters or same account alts. Maybe someone else knows?

I won't argue that the relative sizes of the two corps involved should be factored in.

ETA: I meant I don't disagree with you on that.

^ I like that plan.

But yeah, if they only exclude trial accounts from the member count, that will do absolutely nothing to keep people from artificially boosting their corp count for a decshield.

Make tons of buddy trial accounts, each having PLEX as their reward. Recycle one PLEX to sub them all. Join them all to the corp. Eventually they'll all unsub, but they'll still be full-account members.

The minimum requirement for members that count towards war cost should be that they are currently subscribed, but this is exploitable as well.

Each account has 3 characters, so a corp requires each member to have their 2 spare characters in the corp as well. Thus the corp size is tripled at no spare cost, meaning a war dec costs about 3 times more.

Only counting members active in the last week however is interesting. Could still work around it (the above, except each member logs in all of their characters at least once per week) but this is kinda beyond what could reasonably be planned for.


TL;DR
At the minimum only CURRENTLY SUBSCRIBED accounts should count towards the defender's member count as far as war costs are concerned. Only discounting trial characters does nothing. Only counting characters active within the last week is an interesting idea as well.

Badly planed changes.

All I can say about this :(.

Still far to easy to wardec helpless industrials (ak grif industrials) as the called prices are just bad jokes (anything less then 10 BILLION/week is a joke).

And if by exident the agressor wardeced a alt-corp where the mains can fight ... the agressor can just decide to not pay and stop the war.

In addition the big problem of neutral-rep was cut out to the crim-departement <- right hand does not know what the left hand do @CCP?

Since my thread is being ignored *sniff* and this one is getting the attention, I'll dump this in here.


Glad to see there is no "wars have to be mutual" option - helps keep Eve dangerous.

Is the Merc Market place the only way to be or have an ally? And if that is the case, is there a "private" contract option available?

Blemish is a good way to help counter corp hopping, but I would also suggest that there be an ISK cost to Concord involved to be made by the individual player. A lower cost for small corp players, and a larger cost for players in large corps. Make it have a cost to hop corps beyond just a bad mark.

The cease fire situation, where after the war the war can not resume between the two for seven days, that should be extended to 14 days. Would also argue, any corp that has had a war end in the past 14 days AND they surrender for over one billion OR had a merc contract for a cost of more than one billion ISK, the cost to war dec that corp is triple in that 14 days. Helps reduce the incentive for ISK pinata.

One thing I notice is that war still lacks a definitive goal to a war. Granted that is not always easy to define. Some ideas could be, how much ISK damage inflicted - once a player defined number is reached, the war ends. Later, when planet districts are added, declare a war to claim districts or multiple districts. This could be extended to outposts, POSes at moons, etc.

He confirmed this at the end of QA.