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.

I know we in the Imperium like to play it safe whenever playing it safe is the way to success. And it is way more often than it isn't, and that doesn't have anything to do with Highsec wars. It's the same everywhere in the game. Why take risks if taking risks is tedious and doesn't get you anywhere?

CCPlease make taking risks worthwhile again!

That would need a way to limit avoidance tactics, though. If your corp has an active war, you cannot leave it or something like that. Because otherwise, with only one active war allowed, you'd sit around and spin ships for weeks at a time, because most corps you declare war on will just disband or log off for a week. I don't think this idea can be made to work.

Actually that happened to me and it was the first time the game became really interesting. People don't join EvE because it is such a great mining simulator. Somehow people like you always forget that this is a game about spaceship combat.

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.

Wrong as usual. Eve online is about working and living in a futuristic space-borne civilization(s) which by its nature holds multiple aspects to the game. The environment itself necessitates "spaceship combat". But that is only one facet of the game. That's why we call it a "sandbox". The wrongheaded and narrow view of Eve by players like yourself is also a part of that sandbox. After all, Every universe needs its window lickers to create a balanced game.


Max

tdlr..... SOME (not all) Merc corps are the new CODE with even less balls (says the person with a forum alt)?

Does it? All I'm seeing is people docking up or disbanding their corps during the wardec. Where exactly is the content?

Paying taxes to get out of it (you only have the brief 24 hr warning period to do it, once the fighting starts it can't be canceled) simply delays the inevitable; it's not like the target 2-3 man corps will have the ISK to compete with Marmite's bank. And it creates an ISK sink that takes advantage of this spamming of wardecs.

Ralph: Locator agents not working on a target means they're in a wormhole. This is (one reason) why I prefer that the locator gives the last known address for offline people. But anyway, we've argued both sides before, so I guess we'll see if CCP does anything, and what.

EDIT: Vincent, no, they only have the initial 24hr period BEFORE the fighting starts to out-wallet each other. Once the 24hr passes, and fighting starts, then the war can't be canceled. Actually, personally I'd give them 24hrs for wallet wars, then 24hrs for the "prepare yourselves" period, then the war is on.

Also, the wardeccers don't have to form alt corps; all they have to do is pay a bigger fee, something that the defenders can't afford to match.

Where it up to meGäó 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.

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).

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 as usual. Eve online is about working and living in a futuristic space-borne civilization(s) which by its nature holds multiple aspects to the game. The environment itself necessitates "spaceship combat". But that is only one facet of the game. That's why we call it a "sandbox". The wrongheaded and narrow view of Eve by players like yourself is also a part of that sandbox. After all, Every universe needs its window lickers to create a balanced game.


Max

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.

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.

Where it up to meGäó 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.

No. more wardec means fun, if anything, fees should be lowered.

People disband because there is no real way to take the fight to wardec corps. Putting something out in space that can be attacked ticks the goal of getting the defender to take action involving spaceships exploding rather than avoiding interaction.

And 1 year later, when 2 insetad of 6 corp/alliance are elft because they banded together to absorb the dec cost increase, we crank it to 1bill/war?

Another year later, 2bill/war for the last mega alliance doing it?

I know I didn't actually say it before,


But It's easier to roll a corp when you get decced then it is to fight.


That's also what I meant when I said things needed to balanced out.


This idea would simply make Wardecs completely useless on all fronts. Larger corps could just blob and small corps would just roll.

Okay here goes, daft idea no.1

Make everyone in an aggressor corps crim flagged for shooting a wardec target, you're paying for Concord to look the other way, but not other corps/players.

or daft idea no.2

Make it so that if you wardec someone you are automatically at war with every other current aggressor corp.

Chaos ensues.