EVE Information Portal

Yoink.

Being a former hi-sec warmonger for a few years myself I got the best out of the current system engaging corporations and alliances outnumbering ourselves in numbers, but not in skils and assets. It was a blast and until people started training their falcon alts into logistic alts it was a good time...

Cost:
The price being calculated only against the target size is only fair the moment all corporations pay an upkeep tax for their members. Or you will see corporations and alliances stuffing their pilot roosters with alts!! Being big should NOT be an advantage... I would highly suggest discounts for being underdogs - Half price if target has more than twice your numbers? Double price if target has less than half your numbers? Sounds fun and fair to me...

Mercs:
How about allowing agressing corporations the chance to hire in mercs? Obviously agressors can declare war on their own, however if you have a great public score chart why not allow mercs on agressors side to take part in that?

Surrender:
Ending a war only with isk? Utilize the contracts code and allow people to throw in some items... Apart from the honest fights (we didn't use neutral RR and neither did our enemies) the most memorable treasure we got in my corporation was a deal getting 6 HACs. Little value in isk, however it was fun and gave us something to remember.

Mutual wars / Counterdeclarations:
In my opinion it should very well be possible to counter declare. The declaration cost should be calculated in the same way as the other wars. If the agressor then retracts the war the roles will have turned and wardec will continue to be active as long the new agressor pays the fee. It would be a great roleplay to reverse roles on an agressor to force them fighting on or admit defeat paying a ransom...

Questions:
1/ How long waiting time from a war is declared? 24h? 48h?
2/ Edited out...
3/ How will you attempt to make "Red vs Blue" happy? Do you want them to move to lowsec/nullsec?
4/ What prices are you contemplating (I know nothing is set in stone)
5/ Will you attempt to promote people to move fighting away from stations in any way?
6/ Are you working with team Crimflag about docking times and making sure neutral assists will carry over agression so they cannot dock up at will?
7/ Will the payment of mercs be automatic or manual? With mercs being tied into a war they might be screwed over by their employer which IMO is fine, but something to think about.
8/ Will the price to continue a war become bigger when defender is bringing in more numbers from mercs?

Pinky

Yay, it's back up...

From GD...


Although trial accounts won't be counted towards the costs, I still want to know if ~inactive~ accounts will be factored in..


And in regard to the killmails...

If I kill something with a mineral cost of 1bil, and go back to view that mail after a while (say, after that periodical measurement-change is made for insurance costs, etc.) is it possible that the kill will now be valued at, say, 1.5bil - or in other words, will the price be hard-wired into the mail itself, or dynamically generated at 'view'...?

Ah, here it is, great :)

I too love the killmails :D

Are you not afraid the listing of prices will confuse, annoy and frustrate people when the real prices are so far from the in-game generated materialprices?

Pinky

How will you be handling BPC values?

Revealing the exact location in a solar system of a kill could be revealing vital intel, such as safespot locations etc.

It might be a bit intrusive to some

I like the idea of removing trial accounts, but I too worry about corps filling with noob alts. What about make it that the count is on players who have been active in the last x days?

Otherwise I love the changes :)

this is just a mockup made by a UI designer. it's not a final version of how everything will look (we're still iterating on it and we've actually changed it a bit already since this is a version we used at Fanfest) and I'll try my best to make the data correct when I implement it

It really does look good gents!

There's two things I have to say at the moment - and I know you're going to tell me this might be down the road.

1. My basic point is that if you can make the objectives/goals of some of the wars to be tangible, then people have a reason to undock and fight or lose something if they don't.

i.e. "I am declaring war to close your office in the Dodixie System".

Now, this is a very rough concept to implement - but to me that is actually tangible. Should every war require that? No. But perhaps some can and will have a kind of objective system built into it. There's the challenge of how the objective is completed etc.

I'm also thinking about things such as Miners wanting to shoot other miners (As a merc, I get a surprising number of those based on anonymity). So, we go in and kick the miners out of their home system and harass them (not the breaking EULA kind of harassment- Crazy GMs), and then they can end the war by just leaving. To most people this is an easy value judgement that they will take to end the war and leave the system. So, although that can be done through the "meta-game" so to speak without game mechanics, some ways to lay this out in a war dec might be worth looking into.

Also, some people have stated that publically showing who has surrendered will make corps that surrender blatant targets of opportunity. I think that the results of that information should be private. It will get around the merc circles anyways.

Another question : Let's say the Defender totally turns the tide on an Aggressor - can they offer to surrender to the defender to get out of the war early? This might allow an out for a merc group to get out of a war early, but they then have to pay the people that they were just trying to shoot at. Think about it.


2. On this topic :



This is back to the old dec shield System. Instead, you just stay in the alliance for a week and then the price goes up ridiculously high and then you drop out again. I think this needs a bit closer examination on how not to **** the mercs who want the war.

Now, I don't think that someones war dec should stop you from joining an alliance. And in my opinion alliances in high sec are just going to get mega huge to make war expenses ridonculously high. This might stop the average 1 man corp, but we might even see mega huge privateer alliances rise again that can afford the costs of these.

(Get a 700 man privateer group, each person gives 1m isk a week and you can war dec a huge alliance easily.)

But, how do you plan on stopping alliance hopping then? I think the most notable deterrent to this would be that if a corp joins an alliance the war is extended 7 days from the moment the corp joins an alliance. Meaning that the mercs keep getting a free extension on their war dec if corps try and move around and alliances have to really consider if they want to take a merc war on just for this corp and wait it out a week.


My biggest prediction from inferno is the rise of mega alliances and mega privateer groups.

The difference from before is these Mega Alliances once formed, even if they are being constantly harassed by privateers, have the chance to make the jump into null sec for their own self-determination. Meaning that they can actually try and take sovereignty because they've become huge, rather than become huge because they've taken sovereignty.

I think this potential is a very positive one for the upcoming future in promoting people out into null sec this way. Once people come together great things happen. THe issue with the last system is that getting an alliance to be large was challenging because some 2 man corp would war dec you and then your carebear whiny friends go "BUT BUT BUT" and drop the alliance to get away from a war dec.

Now they have a reason to stick it out together.