EVE Information Portal

With the current system the war goes on until the attackers corp wallet runs dry. With the new system the war has to be prolonged by hand. You are actually getting an improvement.



As you have stated you are very well capable to avoid any PvP. For you nothing will change. Why do you want to force your playstyle on others? There are players who like challenges.

Yes, and they all are hoping to be able to wardec hapless non-PvPrs in this dreadful game when killing the innocent has got awful consequences such as:

Would sugges thte cost of a war works both ways. A small corp decing a larger corp pays alot. A large corp decing a smaller corp pays alot too. Would invite corps of similar size to fight more.

I'm just going to repeat a few of the more important things in this thread.

Big corps cost more to dec. A more tinfoil-reliant player might suggest that the bigger corps are bored of using out-of-corp alts to run their errands in high sec. Which corp has more trouble getting a billion isk, a 10 or a 1000 man one? Basically you're making bigger corps very unlikely to be decced. You know, the ones that actually have the manpower to clean the Jita undock for their guys. Also more people wanting to shoot people should cost more. What's the logic behind "I want to go shoot those guys with these guys" only counting the people on the other side when more targets (people involved in the war) means more costs?

This penalizes the small corps that are being formed. Not everyone wants to join a big corp already there. A small corp of out-of-game friends is practically being told to join an alliance with the politics and risks that follow or stay in the NPC corp. With less new corps we will see more stagnation when the only alternative is joining an existing block.

And finally risk-free griefing. Let's say I have a second account with a suitably skilled character in a one-man corp. I can dec another corp, say the small corp of friends up there, a 10 man industrial, for 25 million per week. I just need to stay docked and type a few lines in the local every now and then to force the other corp to stay docked. I effectively make it impossible for them to play without it affecting my main's ability to function. I'm sure the 10 people appreciate paying sub for staying docked. Now eventually they will start doing whatever they usually do when I take no action and I can go get their juicy stuffs with a small investment of 50 million or so.

Sounds great? But it gets even better. If they hire someone to protect them, I can just not pay and stay docked for the week. I'm out of a paltry sum of ISK but caused quite a bit of annoyance for other 10 players. One could argue it's in line with the risks of forming a corp but in my opinion this is just ridiculous. They can make the war mutual but that just means I don't have even to pay the bill. Who's going to camp a station for 4 weeks continuously? Where's the risk for me?

The coming changes to the wardec system look positive. A clear cut goal on allowing players to know what they are getting into (or having thrust upon them) with easier to understand and utilize options that are available to the players. However, there are a few parts that seem to hit a snag on the listed goals and removes existing play styles

1) The fee for a wardec looks a bit high. I accept the desire to make it a larger moneysink, but the model presented seems out of line. That model being 20/50m plus 0.5m per member each week. These costs directly go against the one of the intended functions of the war as stated at FanFest and this dev blog. The fees grant smaller corporations a forum of immunity in that they would not have the ability to pay enough (ransom) to even cover the cost of the dec itself. While at the same time the only groups able to afford decing the power-blocks will be those getting funding from said power-blocks. This goes against the goal of encouraging wars outside of empire as well as limiting viable targets for a war since the high and low ends are both removed from the average player. As an example, it would cost over 4.2 Billion Isk to declare war on the Goons for one week (only taking into account their player-count). One of the main points presented at FanFest was a desire to encourage Null Sec wars to become sanctioned through the new mechanics. The payments of billions of isk per week are not enough to warrant In-Game features that can be found on many third party killboard websites

~My suggestion is to keep (and maybe even raise) the initial starting dec fee (20/50m plus 0.5m per member), but then reduce the weekly fee to sustain the dec to encourage a war to 'run its course.' This goes directly in line with a more impactful war system that was stated as desired during FanFest. Additionally, having a set 'maximum' fee may not be a bad idea to aid in declaring wars on larger power-blocks to deny them easy access to trade-hubs.

2) I REALLY like the Ally system in that it allows for people to jump into a war without having to pay for it. But this seems very one sided in the favor of the defender, granting them a lot of power and control over the war itself which will generally turn into the aggressor dropping the dec once they get the chance if things are not in their favor. Being stuck in a bad war for a week isn't much of a risk since many players are only really active a few days out of the week.

~My suggestion is to set a war to 'mutual' when the defender brings in an ally. My reasoning: when the aggressor pays the fees to start a war they are indicating that they want to 'kick the other guy's teeth in'. When the defender brings in an ally they are showing they that also want to 'kick the other guy's teeth in', which would mean that they mutually want to fight it out, and thus should have the war set to mutual. This would remove the aggressor's need to pay the weekly fee, but would also remove their ability to withdraw the war itself without paying compensations to the other party (more risk to start a war, but a 'reward' of not having to pay). It would also put an increased meaning or 'weight' to the defender pulling in allies to fight their fights for them since it may mean that they get stuck in the war for a prolonged time if things turns south (though they can just bring in more allies).

3) Mutual wars don't make much sense as they are now. When a war is set to mutual the aggressor no longer has to pay the bill, but at the same time they can drop the war just as they could if it wasn't mutual. This gives no real reason for people to use that mechanic say Red vs. Blue.

~To change this all one has to do is replace the ability to drop a dec with the requirement of paying a surrender to drop the war, even if you are the aggressor, after the war becomes mutual.


These ideas come directly from having worked in a smaller wardecing corp. The listed changes will make it much harder (if not impossible) to pull a profit unless the smaller corps join together into longer power-blocks. This comes from simple math: you can't ransom someone more isk than they have to give, and many of the smaller corps don't have the funds to pay enough in ransom to make running an extended war worth even considering. On that note, it is VERY easy to just stay docked up for a week. This new system makes staying docked even nicer considering the heftier fee the aggressor has to pay to keep someone docked with no chance of kills or ransoming.

My desire to avoid power-blocks and enjoy the game with a small group of friends is the very reason I left Null Sec for Empire wardecing.

Hmm... system needs a rework, but with this new system... it feels like the aggressor has a too big advantage (cause they choose to start and to end the whole war-thing)

What about this idea (to give the defender a little more room): The price of the wardec is calculated by the current members of the aggressor corp. When they declare war, they are not able to recruit new members and current members cannot leave the corp. The defender has none of these recruitment - restrictions.
To give Alliances like RvB a chance just to fight each other - give the defender the opportunity to also declare war to the aggressor - in that case all restrictions are lifted.

Just a idea... it's late... at this time my english is bad - and i don't want to throw a wall of text at you (:

Very well summarized. Now just wait to have that smart CCP-whatsoever guy tell us this is exactly what they are aiming for and thus we should just cancel our subscription to their game if we don't like it.

I seriously hope they wardec me all the way until 2013.

okey dokey

gonna gank you too