EVE General Discussion

If merc corp war dec'ed someone it is not allowed to declare another war until current one is finished. If a victim corp got war dec'ed it can't war dec someone else even the attacker but only allowed to assist in war decs running aside.
1 active war in a time no multiple wars declaration. In the mean time make a war declaration more flexible in terms of time frames e.g. 1d, 3d etc. Make the corp memeber count a limit factor of war dec e.g. 1 man corp can't war dec anything greater than 1 man corp. Make it 1:2 ratio so 2 man corp could only war dec 4 man corp. Corporation no matter what size is can't war dec an alliance, same works as opposite.

Some thoughts from my side.

In a game where you can load the dices, people will always thrive to load the dices. In the end, as soon as the game was created with losses being meaningful, everybody has to accept people will try their best to cut their own losses. Ratter don't run and hide because it's fun but because their ship is on the line and that ship is X hours of ratting to do again if lost. PvPers will use many kind of no commitment doctrine because again, losses ends up hurting if it happen to often. Others will go with overwhelming numbers because quantity is a quality of it's own.

So many posters are 100% against the idea of an arena/dojo systems because they want to be able to load the dice their way. As long as people think this way, blueballing and troll doctrine will exist because losing hurt. Want to see games where people really always go balls deep in combat and really rarely blueball? Try the one where losses mean nothing and check the meat grinder in produces matches after matches.

People don't play AGAINST you in EVE, they play FOR themselves.

The only broken mechanic in connection to wardecs was NPC Corp immunity to them.

I think watchlists should be nonconsensual as long as you're in space.

Where it up to me™ NPC corps would wardec each other on random occasions as part of lore and immersion (etc. etc.). That would really stir the pot a bit. I would even give player corps options to assist as a means of gaining corp-corp standings for faction building.

It's not up to me, so I can just scratch my ass instead.

You figured that out all by yourself? LOL

Max

A few things to think about about for those who think there are ways to cut down on indiscriminate/mass war decs in high-sec.

If CCP took the extreme measures of removing war-decs from high sec completely, do you think those small pve/indy corps will be 'safer' and can play the game way they want? No. I predict there will be exponential increase in high-sec suicide ganking, even more so than now.

What it boils down to is this - people fly/transport shiny stuff in high-sec thinking they're 'safe'. Many of these people fly in very predictable ways and are totally unprepared for a gank. If I rob you it's not because I don't like you or I want you to be miserable, it's because I want what you have and I can take it with force.

No war dec in high sec will just mean people will resort to other means to destroy/steal your stuff. Suicide ganking being the obvious choice, but you could also expect rise in corp theft and such. If you own anything of value, you can bet there will be people who want to forcibly destroy/steal it from you, by any in-game means available. War dec is just one mechanism, but people will find new ways or take some of the old methods to its extreme if there was no more war dec in high sec.

When you consider such extreme scenario as 'no war dec allowed in high-sec', you understand why no amount of mechanism tweaking will ever 'let you play the way you want without being forced into pvp/dock up'.

So any balance discussion regarding war dec & high sec pvp should from the start clearly exclude 'making it high sec safer' or 'allowing people to do what they want without having to worry about being forced into pvp' etc.

The moment you undock in space you have become a target, whether you are in war or in low or in null or in high is irrelevant.

So discussion on war dec balance should be more about how to make this a fun pvp mechanism, not how to balance the mechanism between those who dec vs. those who get decced (and don't want to be decced).

"Fun" PVP does NOT exist if you take into account everyone's definition of "fun." The wardec corps are doing all they can to increase their own "fun", and the prey corps are doing all they can to increase THEIR own "fun", and the result is that nobody has any fun.

There are a million PVP mechanisms, from suicide ganking to FW, to piracy and bounty hunting, to wormhole roams, to NPSI fleets, to large alliance wars; we don't need more, seriously. We need to pick one (or a few) and go participate, but some people don't want to participate. You can add however many more kinds of PVP you want, if people don't want to participate they won't.

So I didn't care to balance the wardec mechanism; it clearly is being balanced by player action. I simply wanted to suggest a cash sink; anything is better than the upcoming 10% market tax and fees. But perhaps we just need to wait a few weeks, at 300 decs per side the fees should add up, perhaps enough to bleed quite a bit of ISK out of the economy.

WRONG dum dum.

with reference to the EvE Online New Pilot FAQ, page 22, Section 7 and i qoute, "The essential core concept of EVE Online is that it is full time PvP in a sandbox environment.".

PVP is the core of this game, other activities are there to support it, earning isk, building stuff, and mining stuff are there to make things explode.

My thoughts on the wardec system and how it could be improved:

Raise the per-member cost of a wardec by about 10% - making it a little more expensive per person. Then include the member count of the wardeccing corp in the count - to discourage further conglomerating of wardeccers. Additionally, remove the hardcap on wardec fees, and lock recruiting on the agressing corp once the wardec fee is paid to prevent abuse (or include a fee for each added member equal to what they'd cost if they'd been there at the start to bring them into the wardec).

And/Or:

Allow defending corps/alliances to counter-bribe CONCORD in a non-trivial way to cancel the wardec before the 24 hour waiting period is up. The counter-bribe would need to scale to the size of the corp/alliance being wardecced (and only them, not the attacker), but could cost 3-5x per person the normal wardec per-member rate. (maybe 5x under a certain size, and shrinking to a minimum of 3x above a certain size? debatable I'll admit). Could also have a minimum baseline (like 5x the minimum baseline wardec fee). No, this mechanic would not provide any sort of immunity from being re-wardec'd by the same (or any other) group, the agressor would have to decide if its worth paying another fee to try to get it to stick a 2nd time though.

And/Or:

Increase wardec fees by a percentage for each concurrent outgoing wardec (including minimums). No hard caps on the humber of wardecs, just make people think about being a bit more selective.

---

Response to the idea of a wardec "structure" that defenders could destroy to end the wardec.

No - because from an in-universe standpoint, it makes absolutely no sense. You're not playing king of the hill or capture the flag. It's not sov warfare either (which is itself a form of king of the hill).

Remember, wardec's are nothing more than Group-A *bribing* CONCORD to look the other way while they attack Group-B. The reasons FOR wardecing could be to go after a POS, or POCO (or soon, a Citadel) - all of which are perfectly valid objectives within the sandbox. An arbitrary wardec related structure? No. Doesn't fit. Why would anyone put up a structure that has the sole purpose of prematurely ending a war they declared.

---

I would also suggest that "personal" wardecs against individual members of NPC corps be allowed, but perhaps still cost the current 50mil minimum (debatable). This makes it impossible to be immune to the wardec mechanic, and possibly would encourage people to not hide in npc corps. For the purposes of these individual wardecs, the NPC FW corps would qualify, despite being at war with the opposing faction pair.

---

The non-mutual watchlisting of valid wartargets should function in Highsec (and only highsec) - and report something like "Player is now active in High Security space," and "Player is no longer active in High Security space" which can mean either the player has logged off or has gone into Lowsec, Nullsec or W-space.

In order

Nerf

Valid Point

Game Breaking Idea

Not a terrible way to offset a Nerf - That said from a lore pov I can see no way this makes sense. I hope these citadels enable a way to track people's online/offline status a little better. It could even be interesting if they simply displayed your current online targets in the region they are placed down in.