The war declaration fee must be in the Master Wallet of the corp wallet. Note: A corporation can only issue a maximum of 3 wardecs, an Alliance has no such limit.

Alliance hopping to avoid war is not an exploit.

I don't have a link for you but a GM made a thread regarding the change in policy several months ago.

Also please remember that every time the corp declares war on someone it costs them money, and with each aggressive war declared against the target aliance the cost to declare war against that alliance is increased by 50 million. So to declare war against an alliance with 3 corporations costs 50 for the first corp 100 for the second and 150 for the third, totalling 300 million isk for a single war. If each corp has its maximum number of normal aggressive war slots filled (sometimes you can end up with aggressive wars in exccess of the limit because of corps dropping from their alliances) and that those wars are also against alliances (they may not be though) each corp is paying an additional 250 million per week. So that entire setup running with 3 corps costs 1.05 billion isk per week.

It costs less than that to form an alliance.

It's not actually a smart or cost effective way to operate, they'd be better of just forming an alliance

In that case my suggestion to you is to declare war on all of their corps and beat the snot out of them because what they are doing is not unusual and this is not an area in which CCP is likely to ever do anything to help you.

I don't have a link for you but a GM made a thread regarding the change in policy several months ago.

Also please remember that every time the corp declares war on someone it costs them money, and with each aggressive war declared against the target aliance the cost to declare war against that alliance is increased by 50 million. So to declare war against an alliance with 3 corporations costs 50 for the first corp 100 for the second and 150 for the third, totalling 300 million isk for a single war. If each corp has its maximum number of normal aggressive war slots filled (sometimes you can end up with aggressive wars in exccess of the limit because of corps dropping from their alliances) and that those wars are also against alliances (they may not be though) each corp is paying an additional 250 million per week. So that entire setup running with 3 corps costs 1.05 billion isk per week.

It costs less than that to form an alliance.

It's not actually a smart or cost effective way to operate, they'd be better of just forming an alliance

I didn't understand what you were getting at with this thread initially but I think I understand it now.

The corps are declaring war on alliances using different corps then all corp jumping to one specific corp to fight with only 1 alliance at a time thus rendering the other alliances with nothing to shoot at until it's their turn on the merry-go-round.

It's a perfectly legal tactic and there's very little you can do about it.

Eve players are a devious bunch and will always find ways of fighting on their terms. Quite a sensible outlook really.

One really good reason to no longer live in High Sec.

Move to Null and shoot who ever you damn well please.

I didn't understand what you were getting at with this thread initially but I think I understand it now.

The corps are declaring war on alliances using different corps then all corp jumping to one specific corp to fight with only 1 alliance at a time thus rendering the other alliances with nothing to shoot at until it's their turn on the merry-go-round.

It's a perfectly legal tactic and there's very little you can do about it.

Eve players are a devious bunch and will always find ways of fighting on their terms. Quite a sensible outlook really.

I'll believe you, but source please? And like I said, it doesn't matter either way. The aggressor can always wardec the new alliance, again for no cost.

I get the feeling that people don't really understand my complaint. Let me try to state it more clearly:

On the one hand, CCP's policy is that: corporations are limited to three wardecs. Alliances are not limited to three wardecs, but get charged more for making additional wardecs. The corollary to this is that EVERYONE in an alliance is attackable when they issue a wardec. EVERYONE in a corp is also attackable when they issue a wardec, but there are many less members in them.

What this group does BREAKS this balance. They get the benefit of being "untouchable" by corpjumping. They get the benefit of issuing as many wardecs as they want. They also get the benefit of lower wardec costs, since corporations pay less to wardec other corporations. Finally (though this is not part of my main argument), this gives a VERY small group of players (roughly five, not counting alts) disproportionate influence over hundreds of players.

This is my issue with the current policy on corpjumping. It breaks the built-in balancing that keeps griefers from deccing every corp and alliance under the sun.

And believe you me, we have gone on the offensive. These guys just log off or jump corps when they know they are dealing with an organized gang. They won't even engage in even numbers without neutral repping. And you know what? That's fine by me. That's part of EVE and I get that. That doesn't mean that this PARTICULAR mechanic isn't broken.

1) Wardecing an alliance costs a lot.
2) You don't stay in the alliance. You hop into the alliance, the alliance gets the war, you leave....now free of wardec. Rinse and repeat until your aggressors get tired of constantly trying to wardec you to no avail.

It's a really stupid, wuss thing to do, but no more so than those you're dealing with.

You could also simply move into low or null where anyone that wants to fight you will HAVE to make themselves available for return combat....corp hopping be damned. You may find in fact that the less BS mechanics and CONCORD crap going on, the more enjoyable the game....even for carebears.

That doesn't mean that this PARTICULAR mechanic isn't broken.

The wardec "rules" shouldn't be understood as game policies. They are simply game mechanics which can be followed, worked around, or avoided.

Compare this to, say, cynosural fields. The "rule" says you need two people in order to move a capital ship. However you can easily use an alternate character to do it without help. And nobody thinks that's broken.

Aitena, there are two separate topics here.

First is using alt corps to declare more than three simultaneous wars. This is what my "cyno field" analogy was refering to. I don't see anything wrong with this - in fact I think the three wars limit shouldn't be there at all. If a corp thinks they can handle fighting half of EVE at once, let them.


The second issue is switching corps to avoid a wardec. I agree with you on this. Switching to an NPC corp which cannot be wardecced in return makes this quite literally a PvP flag you can toggle on or off at will in highsec. The only cost is not being able to grant your character any corporate roles - which in highsec is unnecessary anyway.

In my opinion, this is just one out of a big pile of broken game features called "highsec". I haven't been active in highsec for over two years, but I think that the entire aggression system could use an in-depth reworking. Considering how the mechanics work, I don't think highsec was ever intended as a place for "serious" PvP - the kind of serious where you expect your actions to have meaningful consequences.

From the point of view of a "non-pvp corp" (which to me sounds like a "non-pvp clan" playing Quake, but whatever), what is the difference between a "griefing" corp wardeccing them exclusively, and the "griefing" corp wardeccing them and half of EVE at once? If anything, the latter gives the "griefing" corp more targets, making it that less likely that someone from that particular "non-pvp" corp is attacked.

Quake is not a sandbox. EVE is. The current mechanics, like I've said before, remove the ability to effectively counter aggression in highsec. When the hypothetical "bully in the playground of EVE" throws a rock, it's only natural that the kid getting picked on should be able to throw rocks back, even if they are bad at throwing rocks and lose in the process. (Yes, this is a terrible metaphor)

Your argument about "more targets" is completely beside the point, as a wardec makes it effectively impossible for highsec activities to continue as they do normally.

Once upon a time, as a 2 month old noob, I was in an noobie industrial-focused corp that got constantly wardecced. It was fantastic experience, as I was able to get some practical pvp experience. The enemies, while they were older, richer, more experienced, and generally better rounded as pvp pilots, were touchable, and we did the same tactics that they did - camping their stations, trying to catch them on gates, etcetera.