If there was a way for indy corps to declare "war" on a merc corp or a nullsec corp that forced them to mine or log off for a week, you know people would be up in arms and the "lul you chose to pvp and I support that, soz u dont want to mine" would never fly.

This is without a doubt an anti indy move and anyone who can't see that is likely going to be shooting miners. I don't see why war decs are needed in the first place, there are plenty of people who want to pvp in low sec and null sec.

That's true too, they can get all the PvP they want in lowsec and nullsec, why do they need to PvP in hisec?

..snip..

You are aware of the fact that you can make more ISK mining in 0.0 do you? Margin are much better there as well.

What exactly are you whining about? You can completely opt-out of wardecs by staying in NPC corps or you can go to 0.0 where you don't care about wardecs.

Just because some people want to bully the little guy, the carebear, someone who just wants to log on and make stuff, how does that make the war dec system justifiable?

My proposed solution to this is for the aggressor, in addition to the Concord fees, to place a sizeable sum of ISK into an escrow account that goes to the "winner" of the war. This implies that there will be a way to determine a "winner" of each war, which brings me to my next point

Hey guys, thanks for good comments, I'll try to answer a few of your questions here. I'm paraphrasing many of the questions.

Q: Waiting time for war to become active?
A: Will still be 24 hours for war decs. It will probably also be 24 hours for ally joining, though we would like to shorten it. This might be tricky tech wise though as we must be sure that all server nodes get the update and the safest way to ensure this is to pass downtime.

Q: Price of war?
A: The current formula is 20 mill (for corp, 50 for alliance) base price plus 500.000 per member in target corp. We're looking into some sorts of diminishing returns/cap, but nothing has been decided yet. We will not modify cost based on aggressor size as it is too easily gamed.

Q: Take fights further from stations?
A: We're not doing anything for this in Inferno.

Q: Mutual wars?
A: Will still be in. Haven't nailed down all changes for this yet, but one thing to note is that there will be no restrictions to leaving/joining a corporation that is (only) in mutual war(s).

Q: Paying mercs?
A: The ally contract will enforce a one time payment up front. Other deals (like for length of war, reimburse losses or per kill) is between the defender and the merc and is not enforced by the system.

Q: War cost modified by allies?
A: No, only the size of the defender corp modifies cost.

Q: Inactive accounts/characters modifying cost?
A: This is one of the things we're looking into. One issue we have to be careful about here is not giving the aggressor to accurate information about the defender (like exact number of active players).

Q: Will item value listed in killmails/war reports change over time based on change in market value?
A: No.

Q: How do you calculate value of blueprints?
A: We don't, they are the exception to what value we could track. We looked into adding this, but it turned out to be too complicated.

Q: Everything on market now?
A: More or less. Basically, everything that exists, is published and has a meta level is on the market now.

Q: Tangible war goal?
A: We definitely want to move the war system into a direction where people are fighting over something. However, it's impossible to create a single war system that would enforce that without introducing lot of rules and restrictions. So we're keeping the 'reason for war' in the hands of the players.

Q: Ally betraying?
A: There is nothing stopping the ally deccing the defender (or vice versa), but we see no reason to create some system rules for how this is treated on the ally side. The most basic version here is hiring mercs that do nothing. We want the merc system to be based on reputation in the end.

Q: Revealing location?
A: As Punkturis has already indicated this will probably not be the case (at least not exact xyz) in the final version.

Q: Defender taking over wars?
A: We've contemplated similar things, but ended up deciding it would complicate the system too much. If the defender is really keen on getting back at the aggressor, he can simply war dec him.

Q: Tiny entities deccing large entities?
A: The fact this makes this harder is a conscious decision. We don't want to ban this activity of course, but see no reason to support it.

I'll be continue monitoring this thread and will try to answer further questions.

Q: Price of war?
A: The current formula is 20 mill (for corp, 50 for alliance) base price plus 500.000 per member in target corp. We're looking into some sorts of diminishing returns/cap, but nothing has been decided yet. We will not modify cost based on aggressor size as it is too easily gamed.

Please, i have a question!

If i am in a miner corp and someone wardecs us solely to prevent us from playing the game, how exactly can we avoid being at war and keep playing w/o surrendering to blackmail or dismantling our corporation?

Thank you in advance!

[
But, CCP wants to force PVE players into PVP and then wonders why their game doesn't attract new players

Hey guys, thanks for good comments, I'll try to answer a few of your questions here. I'm paraphrasing many of the questions.

Q: Take fights further from stations?
A: We're not doing anything for this in Inferno.

Can we add one more thing?

Make it so the aggressive corp cannot dock when under fire. I am tiered of the aggressors decking the corp i am in just to play docking games, or undock and then redock when they find out that they made a mistake on how much force we can bring. They made the war. They should have to surrender or fight, and not be able to hide.Twisted

(yes this player is in an NPC corp. I am not that crazy to put my corp out there like that.)Blink

Q: Neutral parties in a fight?
A: This is part of crime watch and not handled specifically by the war system. RRing someone in a legal war fight in hi sec adds a Suspect flag. This won't solve RRing as such, so maybe something more needs to be done, but this is what we're planning for Inferno.

Q: Everything on market now?
A: More or less. Basically, everything that exists, is published and has a meta level is on the market now.

Please, i have a question!

If i am in a miner corp and someone wardecs us solely to prevent us from playing the game, how exactly can we avoid being at war and keep playing w/o surrendering to blackmail or dismantling our corporation?

Thank you in advance!

While I applaud changes to the broken war dec mechanics, the above quote shows CCP still does not quite understand the reality of (some) wars in Eve. The proposed changes are a halfway fix at best, and only change part of what is wrong. As a result, this system might actually result in a worse player experience than the current system. I feel that it does not do enough to change it from a griefing tool into a tool to resolve inter-corp disputes through military means. If, of course, CCP intended for wardecs to simply be a griefing tool I would prefer that they state this clearly.

The main issue I see with this is that you're now effectively locking corps and alliances into a war, even if they do not enjoy playing like this, without giving them an effective way to get out of it. "Oh but you can fight back, even get your friends to help out!" you might say, but this is not always effective. Sure you can fight back, but there is no guarantee that that will end the war (even with help from your friends). Especially when plenty of high sec wardeccing corps are made of up alts, who can easily 'escape' to their mains to play elsewhere, or consist of players who specifically seek out pvp. As defender, you're essentially resigned to waiting (hoping) for the aggressor to get bored of the war.

Now I do admit the ease of getting out of wars currently is a big issue, one only justified by the broken system we currently have. But forcing players into a war they didn't chose should come with an ability for the defender to take control of the wardec, and giving them the direct ability to end the war and enforce a temporary peace.

Not only will this give corporations a real reason to fight (on both sides of the war), rather than sit in stations or AFK cloak in local, it will also give a real incentive to use mercenaries. Afterall, if your own forces or your hired guns are effective, YOU take control of the war completely.

As such I'd suggest the following changes/additions to the system proposed in the devblog:
1) The attacking corp/alliance starts with an 'ISK deficit' equal to the cost of the wardec.
2) In order to keep control of the wardec, they need to inflict at least that much damage on their target corp/alliance (and any friends they might have). ISK damage is already being tracked in the new War Reports.
3) At the end of each war week, when the new bill is due, the system evaluates if the attacking corp is ahead on ISK damage and if they met or exceeded their ISK deficit. If so they keep control of the war. If not, control of the war transfers to the target corp/alliance, who then effectively become the attacker. They can decide to renew the war (and pay the fee), or cancel it.
4) Any wars that are not renewed are followed by a period of peace between the two entities equal to the length of the war.

This change would still allow people to fight unilateral wars, it will still allow people to take down high sec posses and still allow them to beat their enemies into submission. But it will also allow corporations who are being attacked to fight back and give them a chance to end the war they were forced in to, turning a griefing mechanic into a more balanced tool to resolve inter-corp conflicts. And as a big added bonus, it's a much better incentive for mercenary gameplay because 'winning' a war means taking control!

Overall it makes the wardec system a lot more dynamic and interesting.



This, combined with the fact that youGGVre dependent on the aggressor getting bored of the war, means some mercenary corps might find themselves stuck in a war/contract for much longer than they planned, with no way of getting out. This in turn will lead to less corps going the mercenary route. Better would be that merc corps take on one week, or otherwise time limited, contracts?



This formula has to take into account only active accounts. It is far, far too easy to fill up a corp with inactive non-trial accounts.

That's true too, they can get all the PvP they want in lowsec and nullsec, why do they need to PvP in hisec?

CCP it would be nice to have multiple levels of Wardecs. And to upgrade them it would need time and isk.

LVL 1: (Imediate activation) Valid in Nullsec and WH-Space, this would basically be used to track the conflicts and have a nicein game killborad for it.

LVL 2: (+24H to upgrade to it) Valid in low-sec also, a little more expensive then the lvl1.

LVL3: (+42H to upgrade to it) Valid in Hi-Sec

Also the war dec mechanism that is being proposed don't sounds that good... =/ it protects big corps... and make the small ones more vulnerable... Although the kill-board and tracking the kill history would be Awesome!!!

I think that there should be a POT (war wallet) that would be delivered to the winners corp wallet.( Like in poker)

I think that it would be nice if both sides could call reinforcements for the war, and make it possible for corps to exit war if all parties accept, the exiting corp would offer this ISK to the POT and if every other vote yes, they left.

Also it would be good if the war could be reversed, allowing the one that is on the "Defensive" to pay to keep the war... So, make a war payment poll where anyone interested in the war could pay: If both pay, the ISK would be put in the "POT" to be given to the winner, if only 1 pays, the isk goes to concord. ( This will make red and blue life easier and more interesting and competitive )

The Upkeep should be based on the number of characters in both corporations. this would be more fair.

Also there should be an option to refuse war. This would make the Upkeep rize a % each week. and if the war ends and the atacker war dec again... the cost is resummed. If the deffender war dek then, the cost is resset.

You can't, don't worry about it though, the bullies and griefers will get what they want, that's how eve works, remember.

My #1 complaint about low-sec is that it is impossible to use small ships due to station guns/gate guns and a full-fledged war dec will also affect high-sec activities. Why not make it really cheap to have low-sec war decs? This will allow use of all ships without GCC in low-sec, while keeping high-sec activities safe

while keeping high-sec activities safe