EVE Information Portal

Jade, I see your point with the Roleplay side of things. I simply did not consider it as I don't RP in EVE; I build stuff, I destroy stuff, nothing more.

I've noticed the 0.0 stagnation as well, being in a 0.0 alliance myself for the last few years. The last sov change that happened in my area was Test kicking Chribba out of his system and that was over 6 months ago. I both love (easier to make money) and hate (no really fun PvP) the peace I currently have in my area. But back on topic....

Personally, if you've been wardec'd you or your corp shouldn't be able to leave the alliance or have your corp join a non-wardec'd alliance. That would eliminate the majority of the risk-averse cynicism excluding hiding in stations all day or going to lo-sec/0.0. However, corps and members can still join you while wardec'd assuming the corps are not wardec'd themselves.

As for the war-dec system being half-assed, I feel that the majority of the new expansions since I joined EVE a little over 3 years ago (right after Dominion) have been either half-assed or in an alpha state (the "new" SOV system, CQ, UI to name a few). So nothing new there.

It's a shame a long time EVE and wardec player like yourself can't counter my points as I still don't see, and have never seen, the benefits to wardecs excluding the RP side which you just brought to my attention. I suppose I can blame this lack of understanding on my two year, near continuous stint in 0.0 where wardecs are moot and everyone is fair game.

Perhaps so, but I suspect the same people whining about the defensive ally "dogpile" consequence would still moan about treaty-dogpiling if it turned out that wardecs turned sour when too many people alligned with the defender. End of the day its diffcult to divorce people's in-game interest and bias from this discussion on any level - thats kinda what we need the devs for.

Not at all. If done right, it is a fair and balanced change. To state more clearly:

Corp a) I am a vehement enemy of GSF. I will stop at nothing to destroy them. Jade, I am your sworn ally!!

Corp b) Eh, I basically just camp 4-4 and want people to shoot. Thanks for letting me declare GSF for free, not that I'm not just applying for every war going, as I am.

These are two very different scenarios. If highsec wants to rise up in a huge entity and fight GSF then THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO. But, they need to be able to do this without making any and all wars pointless because everyone just wants free wardecs and cares not about the allegiances.

i.e. let a) happen but stop all the ******* nonsense with b)

Your change does *not* do this, neither was 1.0 the solution and neither is 1.1

My personal preference is that 1.0 stays as it is, with the changes:

- Corps can declare war as normal
- Corps can only bind to one ally
- Allies auto-renew if the war is renewed, but can leave the war on a 7 day cooldown if they wish
- Leaving an ally should (probably) have you pay the bill you would have paid to wardec, to discourage farming free wardecs with no consequences.

Leave the devs alone.

Here are my thoughts on the Wardec System

- I agree the idea of aggregated costs for Alliances needs to be re-thought before implemented. Especially if the source of change is from the merc community. It's too early to claim ints killing the market and good mercs will always have a job. Not to mention people will pay for others to focus on a war. There needs to be a system that lets smaller corps leverage the political capitol they have and if friends want to help for free, they should be able to and the defender should not have to pay an absurd cost for this if the opposing force is vastly superior. Fee should go to the mercs, not the NPC system

Maybe the fee only activates once there is a huge discrepancy in the size of the corps fighting. A 10 man corp against a 1000 man corp will not get fees until their allies number equally to the opposing force. THEN the fees aggregate depending on the additional numbers of pilots the new ally brings. The 1000 man corp will need to pay a serious fee to bring new people in against a force 1/100 their size, This seem fair. But then again the large force could always just have their friends wardec on their own, avoiding the fee, same in reverse

- I Do like the idea of a military consultant. The combat PVP part of this game IS just as important as the Economy. An outside perspective on the matter with someone who is not involved in the day to day team and gets warfare may be a good idea on many levels.

- While I agree with Pron Fron that war is its own cost, I do remember the Privateer Alliance fiasco, and the aggregated war cost system seemed to help with that tremendously. That is a good thing, but I dont think we should just use the same line of thought on the alliance system.

MORE Thoughts on the process

- Let us directly invite people to the war via link, as opposed to submitting a general request that can get lost (considering how many wars are going on.)

- War channel - Similar to channels that open up for Interdiction and normal alliances.

- Timer for joining allies needs to be reduced. A lot can happen in 24hrs. Maybe 6 or 12hrs. For war dec its great, again, dont apply the same solution across the board.

- More direct merc market. Should be able to brows for them in some location like I do with anything in the market.

- War history - I see lots of 0v0, possibly because we still need to build history int the new system.


The whole combat / aggro / war side of eve definitely needs careful though and much better tools in game to manage it. But I have faith in CCP, stop pestering them, stop trying to give them advice on management scenarios you are not privy to. Just give them thoughtful logical ideas and discussions. Dont wate their time by trolling them and getting them off topic.

BoBo Out

Why thank you

I agree that Khanh'rhh can write some pretty good stuff when he decides to.

But you did notice "- Corps can only bind to one ally" right?

I like the rest of it, but that seems a bit restrictive. Although I am not entirely sure it means the defender can have one ally, or a corp/alliance can only be an ally to one defender. I read it as the former. Jade may be reading it as the latter.

Accepting this definition for the purpose of discussion:


It does appear by testimonial evidence by both players and devs that case b might be out of hand. I am not sure that shouldn't be allowed, but it certainly shouldn't overwhelm everything else.

Perhaps rewording things to:
"a corp/alliance can only be an ally to one defender" or two or three, or maybe that's where the logarithmic fee kicks in. Aleks might have some good feedback on how many contracts a Merc group can legitimately handle at once. I am pretty sure it is greater than one most of the time for Noir.

Ally-whoring, to coin a phrase, seems to be Khanh'rhh's issue. This goes a long way to solving that without killing off legitimate class-a allies.

The renewal structure looks light years ahead of the clumsy "two week then have to redo the ally agreement" currently proposed.



That sure is an interesting proposal, I think that would have to have some considerations about the ramifications for true "a" class allies needing to bail for unforeseen circumstances. Wardec fees can be pretty expensive could negwallet a corp or alliance and I am not sure that's warranted.

Check out Jade's signature. Perfect proof, also there was another one with an alliance that sounded like a car (The Honda Accord?). When you allow unlimited free allies, you discourage anyone from attacking anyone else.

Basically, the test run for the unlimited allies was between the 1.0 patch and about a week and a half ago. I think 1.0.9 or 1.0.10

So your sense of impartiality says "this isn't fair it helps goons" but you want to nerf tech because, hey, they help goons?

Where do I go to learn this logic

I don't actually mind allies needing to choose to commit to only one war. If thats the way of creating scarcity then so be it. Certainly from a mercenary perspective it makes sense they would be concentrating entirely on the war they are paid to fight no?

And I quite like the autorenewal free forever but pay if you back out before the end of the war thing as a neat mechanic to stop risk free farming of war offers.

In general Khanh'rhh's revised solution is not the one I'd go with instinctively but its NOT a bad solution - and its a lot better than the 1.1 solution the devs have offered us.

Doing that would take a lot of our moderators' time, whereas deleting everyones post who quoted the offending post is simply the touch of a button. I have absolutely no qualms about doing this as it's obvious when someone makes a post that's over the line and therefore logical to not reply to that post. My point about your statement was a joke, lighten up.

On the pilot topic. It's been an oft suggested idea, and not entirely without merit. It is not however as easy as people seem to think, as you then get issues with, for example, how to handle inactive accounts, or alts. I assume that the "hefty isk payments" you are referring to are the ally costs and not the cost with setting up an Alliance, which, as many have stated, would be the obvious way to handle things. RvB and E-UNI had to start somewhere! It shouldn't be as easy as "click button, incur no cost, be at war" - that's not a healthy system. Notwithstanding, the current system does not "only benefit the big entities" - it just specifically doesn't benefit a dogpile of small entities. The system of small vs small, medium vs medium, or large vs large is still totally functional.