EVE General Discussion

Hopefully. I heard it was brought up in the roundtable later on in the day.

It is worrying that CCP felt that just basing on the size of the target was perfectly fine and it took the players to say "umm ... what the hell?"

Tinfoil hat for a moment ... but it's like the edict from Hilmar's office was "Redesign wardecs. Make sure it doesn't support consensual PvP, but at the same time, do something to help shield E-Uni." Basing cost on the size of the target was obvious. I feel they may stick with that. On the other hand, there are no highsec corps that even come close to the Uni's size ... so even basing on differential gives the Uni some financial shielding.

How about instead of basing the war fee on member size, make it an option for corps to pay a monthly fee to increase the cost of war Dec that scales to how much the corp wants to pay per month. Think of it as a form of insurance: you can choose to buy better insurance at a higher premium, or you could stick to the basic insurance with a low premium.

I was thinking that a 2-5x ratio would be appropriate between the weekly war Dec fee increase to the monthly premium. For example, if your corp pays 100 mil a month premium to concord and the ratio is 3, the weekly war Dec fee would be 20 mil + 3*100 mil = 320 mil.

This'll promote bringing lots of small corps under an alliance banner.


That can be good and bad. Basically, all corps are better off being in a loosely organized alliance now than all alone in a ton of little groups.

This promotes people coming under one flag to make wars expensive, which means more communication amongst alliance members, meaning that more groups will have the incentive to draw ambitions thinking to themselves ::

"Well ****, I've got 500 members, we can actually go do something other than sit in high sec on our asses."

Although this makes high sec griefers less happy, it promotes them doing something productive through the system, meaning that they can't run from war decs so easily, they are forced to consolidate under single banners, and then from there that means that it's easier to convince small groups to join your alliance, meaning that you can take them and do something more productive than the sum of the parts would initially entail.

This means that some high sec alliances might actually grow the balls to get out of high sec. Not likely, but maybe a few will actually try and stand up to the 3vilness.

Also means that some high sec alliances might become the biggest alliances in EVE, rather than null sec ones, again going back to the usage of mega alliances to go out into null sec to strike it rich.

Is there any value to an inverse calculation?

So a small corp dec'ing a large one gets a discount, to encourage smaller fleets to move out and chip away at giant organizations that have the advantage of numbers?

A large corp dec'ing a small corp pays extra, as a penalty of using op numerical advantage against weaker, probably younger players.

A same sized corp dec'ing a same sized corp, regular cost, to encourage even fights?

Sounds like you're a proponent of Pay2Win. Where's your post on the benefits of GoldAmmo? I'd like to give it a read, see your take on the real money to get advantages argument.

Good points, and while I was attempting to find a way to mitigate the issue you brought up, I discovered a very good way to get around the entire cost issue anyway, the merc contracts.

the bigger the alliance is, the more it costs to wardec it?

that's dumb as hell, it should be the other way around - the bigger an alliance is, the more they should be able to fight off some weakass empire scrub griefer gang

lol sorry billy, Eve-Uni has too many members but can't be bothered to fight back - your 10 man newbie corp is going to be the most cost-effective target for the pvp bottomfeeders of EVE.