EVE General Discussion

How does a mechanic you can avoid successfully portray "Acts of war"? I don't see any such success here. You can log out for a week to avoid it.

Not really possible in real life. You really have to fight or jump ship to a neighboring location.

Additionally, wars are "location based".

If "War decs" are to succeed they need to mutate.

What we have right now is exactly this: "concord, here's a very trivial amount of money. Please look the other way". It progresses by promoting the opposing side logging out. That's suicidal from a business pov.

Basically, the cost of war needs to increase as so must the result of successful operations.

The victor should be rollling in money of the loser. This promotes the desire to actually "progress by aggression". This promotes better chances for "meaningful content". You're not going to stay out of the war if you're going to start losing money to the victor

You're going to fight :-) note the smiley face as unless you're a "science is an alternative truth" sort, you're going to be having a "oh I see now" moment about now.

What we have can remain, but it should not be called a war dec. it should be called what it is. A "7 day, Selective, forced alternative mechanic event" sponsored by the person handing you it.

Good to see the white knights for the status quo are well. We may actually need you soon for something that you actually won't want.

Commander Spurty, perhaps you should relocate to low-sec, null-sec or wormhole space. Areas in EVE where players are always itching for a fight. This continual effort to try and force a square peg into a round hole by pigeonholing high-sec players into a perpetual state of war is not only unwelcome - but unwarranted.

Whether you realize it or not, EVE depends on high-sec as much as any other area of space. Maybe you should stop trying to destroy Eden...

The problem with a lot of the meaningful suggestions here (of which there have been few) is that it is all about punishing the aggressor. Making it more expensive to fight. Or increasing the risks for the aggressor.

The way I see it, the reason why defensive corps are non-participants is because they have no incentive to fight. Beyond perhaps protecting their assets in space they never needed nor wanted the fight - and are probably unprepared, ill-equipped, under-skilled, and out manned. If the wardec mechanic is to be successful you actually need to give the defender some motivation to fight.

My suggestion would be as follows:

1. Instead of governing the cost of wardec by number of players in enemy corp. It should be governed by:
a. The ratio of cumulative skill points of all members in each of the respective corps.
b. Percentage of the cost of any assets secured in space.
c. The average security status of all players in the defending corp.

2. Defenders who make kills shall receive Concord LP for every war target kill they make.

3. The cost of brining allies into the war should be increased.


The idea here is that mismatched wardecs will be discouraged. Evenly matched wars will be much easier to initiate - and players who keep a high security status will be harder to wardec (as they are in Concords 'good books'). As well as this. There is an LP incentive for defenders to actively participate and engage in gurella attacks.

Miner oriented characters vs pvp oriented ones. Same SP lvl. Solves nothing.

Strictly looking at kills per war, yes. But Devil's Rejects, Marmite, Pirat, etc. might not agree.

Two changes to corp structure: minimum number of players required to form or continue a corp, and make NPC corps vulnerable to wardecs.
Way too many people (me too) use them to shield alts, neutral eyes, haulers, neutral logi, etc. That guaranteed protection of the logistics of your corp/alliance/coalition in the market hubs doesn't encourage player or community development.
The current hubs will remain until this changes. After the change? Who knows, but I predict a more fluid and engaging, emergent system of ebbing and flowing markets. The stuff of econ-nerd dreams.
Many have also noticed that the NPC and especially Starter NPC corps have become a toxic haven for mining fleets, missioners, and the other flavors of bear that poison the minds of our newer players with their bitter chats and risk-averse attitudes.
Also not good for player and community development.

In EvE, mechanics guaranteed safety from all but suicide ganking shouldn't be an option as long as you remain online in space.

The current point of war is to bash structures. That is basically it.
Corps without anchored structures are functionally invulnerable to war decs with a few quick clicks and a couple million isk.
Wardec? Drop corp: roll a new one.

In my fantasy version of EvE, wardecs make sure that everyone is always checking local.

Or just change regions. Or better yet, hang out in low/null sec for a week. Because hi sec war deccing corps NEVER go to low/null.

Or you could play an alt that's in another corp. You get 3 toons per account. There are lots and lots and lots of ways to keep playing EVE that week and avoid ALL consequences of the war dec.

add to it a daylie deduction from the war chest of 1/7 of the input. now the war ends if the defender uses guile and smarts and evades the agressor. if this tactic proves to end the war without incuring any losses the defender gets a nice bonus of 50% of the original war cost and is deemed winner of the war.

A war dec confers an advantage to the aggressor because they choose who they're going to war against, and being a strategy game people tend to only initiate conflicts they already think they can win. Other games have mechanics to balance the advantage of "going first" and perhaps some benefit could be given to the target of a war dec to help balance the field a bit.

So for example if the decee got a 20% bonus to damage done against the decer. There are of course an unlimited number of things you could do to try to pick something that would improve balance.

The goal would not necessarily be to make things "balanced" but maybe you could give the small corp the feeling like they're not totally defenseless and maybe it's worth undocking and taking a chance or even seeking out conflict.

I think new players especially are not happy with the idea of switching to an Alt for the duration of a war and are more likely to just log out. They're laboriously climbing the skills ladder with their first character and the idea of "starting from scratch" will not be appealing.

What if Omega accounts got to have a second character on the account doing simultaneous training for free, but at the half-speed rate that free accounts get? This would encourage the creation of alts which might eventually result in second paid accounts or paid simultaneous training to get the full training speed.

It really doesn't matter. I know what war decs cost. I know what they can cost me, for every ship I fly. I evaluate a war dec in fhe foillowing manner:

1) What is my ship worth?
2) They paid, and they want me. They know, if they have half a brain, where I am likely to be. This is not good, for me.
3) They will minimize their losses, meaning T1 crap with T2 mods and ammo, to waste me.
4) This is a disruption, since I am usually mining, or exploring, or running missions. More expensive than they are.

5) Therefor, I will let them burn themselves out in stupdity and go play world of warcraft for a week. My old restoration druid is in much need of attention, at all times, nerf after nerf, after nerf.

I can't, either. The lag in those systems is nothing to the time dilation mechanic, though.

A wardec is basically some pussy paying money because he thinks you have to be there.