We are proud to bring you the stories, opinions and musings of a long time pilot who has dabbled in everything New Eden has to offer, he writes and podcasts about his opinions and adventures at Ninveah.com

Kirith Kodachi: Radical Idea – War Decs Are Stupid

One of the things getting looked at in Inferno is CONCORD sanction wars, more commonly known as war declarations or war decs. The background story is that one alliance/corporation bribes CONCORD to look the other way as they perform criminal acts on a target alliance/corporation, the upshot is that CONCORD also ignores criminal acts going the other way.

When  the two entities in question are willing to fight, the mechanic works fine. See Red Versus Blue. When the target is large enough or powerful to ignore the aggressor in most cases, the mechanic is not overly harmful to the game. See war decs on null sec alliances or Eve University. When the target is vulnerable and unwilling to fight but the aggressor is one or two guys looking for easy kills or ransoms, its not the worst thing in the world. But when the target is weak and the aggressor is strong, the target corporation usually tries to avoid the war dec by docking up or hopping to a new corp that is not at war. This tactic leaves neither the target (who has to change corps and reset up shop when all he wants to do is play the game in a non-pvp manner) nor the aggressor (who has to watch his target melt away like snow in the hot sun and thus gets no kills nor ISK out of the effort) happy. Any effort to make war decs easier or harder to launch or avoid is going to piss off the other party.

And let’s be frank: war decs are stupid in any internally consistent world.

In a logical world the empires would look at the violence, destruction, economic impact, and chaos caused by high sec war decs and then look accusingly at CONCORD and ask “what the hell are you doing?” It would be as if crime families in major cities could pay the police to look the other way as they blew up buildings and shot at each other in the streets. Sooner or later the military would come in to restore order and sack the entire police force.

Now, I acknowledge that using real world examples to apply to an internet spaceship game where we supposedly play immortal god-like beings of cast wealth and power and are dealing with what amounts to essentially a independent police force free from government interference is a stretch. I’m a big fan of making storyline fit good game design and not making poor game design to fit with storyline.

And I also acknowledge that we need some method of allowing non-consensual PvP in high sec beyond market shenanigans and suicide ganks/can flipping. But at the same time, I think we need a mechanic for players not looking for PvP to have some assistance in dealing with unwanted aggression.

So, here is my proposals (flame as you will):

1) Reduce the time and effort it takes to declare a war. The 24 hour voting and then24 hour to war start is too much.

2) Allow the war dec’ed corp to pay to CONCORD to end the war dec, but make the cost high and make it so the aggressive entity gets it costs back. Once done, war cannot be declared on that corp for at least 24 hours.

3) CONCORD will no respond to hostilities in high sec, but faction navies will and they will engage anyone involved who does a criminal action. This will not be enough to give non-PvPers a complete pass but might be enough support to give them a fighting chance. Nothing changes in terms of low sec though.

4) Do not allow pilots to leave or join a corp in an active war declaration (either target or aggressor).

* * * * *

I know I’m not a war declaration expert and this idea may have holes or issues large enough to drive a Megathron through. Mostly I wanted to write a post pointing out how stupid war decs are.

– Kirith Kodachi

If you would like to send intel or contribute, feel free to use the form below:

[spoiler show=”Submit Intel Here”]

[/spoiler]

85 Comments

  1. Corteztk

    There is no question that war decs don't work. I'm in AAA and people just Dec us to say they decced AAA or because alliances pay them to. There is maybe one kill a week tops from the 3 or 4 war decs we have against us at all times. AAA will never fight in high sec, why would we? We have interests in null sec that take up our time. So basically the war dec system is just an expensive way for people to be annoying. It makes us all have to buy or train extra neutral alts. Other than that nothing good comes from it.

    I don't like the sound of your idea to be honest but war decs need to be different. Also, the concept of locking people in their corp because they are war decced is not a good one. If i leave my NULL SEC corp for a reason completely unrelated to the fact that we always have war decs against us why should I be punished. Maybe they should just make it so that I am still vulnerable to any active war decs the same as the corp is from the time I was in the corp. So if I leave TDT and they have two war decs for 3 and 5 days remaining. I will be vulnerable to attack for 5 days even in a corp with no war decs.

    February 24, 2012 at 8:23 pm Reply
    1. Leader5

      "I'm in AAA and people just Dec us to say they decced AAA". You cant be serious with that comment. If you look at the high sec mercs who are dec'ing the big allaince…they are making a killing. Most of the time they are not paid to do it, they do it because they make so much money killing the 0.0 noobs who fly around highsec in ridiculous stuff. Case and point would be the moar tears group. They feed off of the 0.0 alliance idiots flying freighters and jump freighters through high sec. I see these big freight kills on eve-kill evey week and think: "Who are these idiots flying these haulers through highsec during a war?" Its the fault of the leadership of AAA, Test, Goons, FA, xxdeath, and the list goes on. They allow noobs to join to boost their numbers and this is what they get. Nobs flying through highsec with expesive losses. Fix the recruitment and the decs would probably end.

      February 25, 2012 at 6:04 pm Reply
      1. Corteztk

        See Bambam and leader5 I understand people make money war deccing I'm just saying AAA guys almost never lose ships in high sec. So more or less this is just an annoyance. I actually lost a ship in high sec two weeks ago but it was to a suicide gank and I got trolledpretty good for it. Anyway I'm not saying war decs should be gone just changed to make them more interesting and less about just shaking people down for cash.I really like the idea of the defender being allowed to bring allies into the wardec. Then an alliance like AAA could give an alliance ratting space in 0.0 in return for that alliance fighting on our behalf in high sec as we don't have the time.

        February 25, 2012 at 9:48 pm Reply
        1. Spangleadesh

          You have gotta be kidding me, you gonna let them rat in a belt in LGK? lol
          Reason -A- doesnt lose daft ships to Moar tears is cause you live in NPC 0.0 and use Agil as a trade hub, if MT could be arsed to go up to Agil they would get multiple tard kills like every other time you get dec'd by the lives of Privs of old etc

          February 26, 2012 at 2:32 am Reply
        2. Leader5

          http://moartears.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=10
          http://moartears.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=15

          Just two examples of AAA guys losing big stuff in high sec. AAA are just as bad as every other 0.0 alliance when it comes to idiots moving through high sec.

          February 26, 2012 at 12:37 pm Reply
          1. Corteztk

            Leader5 are you trying to prove my point for me……thanks i guess. What you have linked are two, two month old kill mails with a total drop of 400 million. So again I say for an alliance like AAA war decs are a meaningless annoyance. They need to be made fun. The only way to make them fun is to make them actually about fighting. So I say allow alliances more defence options so that two way fights are more likely to happen then they do currently.

            February 26, 2012 at 1:37 pm
          2. Leader5

            my point was that as long as 0.0 nubs are still flying through highsec during a war dec in things like jf's and freights the war decs will continue, and thats the fault of the leadership for letting stupid players in. You dont see as many decs on PL cause they dont do things like that. They are more strict about their recruitment and thus get dec'd less than other alliances.

            February 26, 2012 at 5:56 pm
    2. BAMbam

      "I'm in AAA and people just Dec us to say they decced AAA" First off commiserations for been in -A-. Secondly you really dont get the point of war decs.

      Decing an alliance costs a lot of isk but is easily recuperated by killing freighters piloted by people who really should know better. Like it or not it is very profitable.

      February 25, 2012 at 7:38 pm Reply
  2. guest

    Can anyone tell me what is the metaphor behind wardecs?

    The closer RL example that I can think is gang wars, since competing corporations don't resort to armed conflict.

    February 24, 2012 at 8:29 pm Reply
    1. Hurr

      "The closer RL example that I can think is gang wars, since competing corporations don't resort to armed conflict."

      Yet…

      February 24, 2012 at 9:07 pm Reply
      1. guest

        If we are basing this concept on a hypothetical future where corps do shoot at each other, then all that police bribe thing should be optional since that's not the defining moment when two entities start a conflict.

        February 24, 2012 at 9:30 pm Reply
    2. Azran Zala

      Concord is like the UN. Just like the UN can sanction the war between the "coalition of the willing" against IRAQ. Concord santion wars between capsuleer organisations, provided fight in accordance to certain international laws and treaties to restrict collateral damage to innocent/neutral bystanders.

      February 25, 2012 at 10:38 pm Reply
      1. Azran Zala

        Concord's prime derective is protecting the empires from each other (and from capsuleers).
        This is probly why wars between the factions (faction warfare) are limited to border world (lowsec) military installations, and highsec sovereignty/systems haven't changed hands between the empires since concords inception.

        There was once (if you ever saw the short video) a standoff between large Minmatar/Thukker capital fleet and Concord in Yulai (the video did not however exlpain who or why this mystery minmatar fleet was there or why), in which rogue Minmatar fleet tried to threaten & give concord an ultimatum to allow them to attack Amarr homeworlds in order to free their inslaved breathren, concord however could not (due that being their prime derective) & did not however, give in to the rouge Minmatar fleets demands.

        February 25, 2012 at 11:43 pm Reply
        1. Azran Zala
          February 25, 2012 at 11:47 pm Reply
  3. dick cheese

    the 'locked into corp/alliance' during wardecs aint bad idea to me, although in highsec im accustomed to telling people who cant fight 'stay docked or GTFO'

    February 24, 2012 at 8:30 pm Reply
  4. fuck goons

    if you didnt allow people to leave during wars there would be corps/alliance that would NEVER be able to change lol, some ppl are always at war choice or not by choice.

    February 24, 2012 at 8:30 pm Reply
  5. Cynic

    1) Yes
    2) Needs to be the length of the war.
    3) No
    4)Yes and no. I liked that idea of locking the aggressors corp while leaving the defenders corp open.

    February 24, 2012 at 8:34 pm Reply
    1. The Observer

      Perhaps only lock the aggressors corp for recruitment?

      February 25, 2012 at 2:01 am Reply
  6. T Nips

    If the aggressors receive a portion of the counter-bribe the defenders pay to end a wardec, this would lead to permanent griefing. I am not commenting on whether this is bad or good, just pointing out the ramifications of which the author of this article has failed to realize or mention….

    Get a small corp with some kills, and then find a carebear corp. Spam them with wardecs at every chance knowing they will pay CONCORD to nullify the declaration. That way every 48 hours you would receive passive income from these carebear corps as they pay to remain invulnerable. Its like a real world protection scam.

    tl;dr 1) Wardec Carebear corp
    2) Carebear pays CONCORD to repeal declaration
    3) Receive portion of counter-bribe from CONCORD
    4) Repeat
    5) Buy Titan
    6) Win EVE

    February 24, 2012 at 8:35 pm Reply
    1. Ravaged

      And you failed reading comprehension. I'm not really for any of these proposals by Kirith but try actually reading the part your critiquing and then tell me how anything you wrote would actually work…

      February 24, 2012 at 9:10 pm Reply
      1. work stinks

        maybe costs plus a reward for a cancelled war?

        February 24, 2012 at 9:17 pm Reply
    2. M1k3y

      Should be if the wardec is paid off you get your isk back but no more, no point in making wardecing industrial corps PROFITABLE, people do it because its fun, pay them for it too and highsec industry will have a heart attack.

      February 24, 2012 at 9:42 pm Reply
      1. Fleksnes

        That would be a new awesome way to grief highseccers willing to pay of the war-dec. Just redec them after 24 hours until they are out of isk or unwilling to pay.
        And be honest, the entire war-dec mechanic is only for dumbasses who wants to steamroll noobs so they can feel awesome.

        What i suggest is make some "high-sec only" resources only mineable/gatherable on contract from concord. You need to be in an alliance to get these, and an alliance can only have one. Their worth could range from 100M per month to billions per month in gatherable minerals and such.
        Do the same for higher tiered missions. That would be incentive for smaller corps to fight smaller corps for the more worthless rights, and the big alliances to fight over the bigger ones.
        Give both parties abilities to put up contracts for merc corps before the war is in effect. Winner keeps the right to continue gather the valuable minerals.

        Having wars just to pummel people who aren't skilled to counter your lame ass is just sad…

        February 25, 2012 at 3:50 am Reply
      2. Azran Zala

        What if one industrial corp is sick of only finding crums in the belts they want to mine because another industrial corp with a hord of 50 hulks strips everything in region, and decides to wardec the competition, shoot them up a little and maybe even do some mining themselves on some tasty (now untouched) roids, with their pvp escorts of course. Wardecs are not just about pvp corps griefing noob corps, they play a very important role allowing anyone a chance to hit back and distrupt the "competition"'s operations. Aswell as getting payback for insults any other reason they may want to bitch slap someone else.

        February 25, 2012 at 10:51 pm Reply
  7. skullair

    1) Yes – Corp voting in general is stupid
    2) No – wasteful just make a new corp…. (Jews dont let there money go that easy)
    3) No
    4) No – this can be exploited to grief some one baddly… yea dec that corp for 6weeks… there members cant leave so they will quit the game…

    Votes are old and time consumeing….
    Prices do need to be worked on….

    "I think we need a mechanic for players not looking for PvP to have some assistance in dealing with unwanted aggression."
    ^Its Called an NPC corp

    February 24, 2012 at 8:40 pm Reply
    1. Nulli_Grunt

      They should increase the price for deccing an alliance that holds substantial 0.0 Sov beyond other entities.

      February 24, 2012 at 9:09 pm Reply
      1. poonus

        The price should also go up significantly for entities whose members have engaged in criminal action over the last 3 weeks.

        February 25, 2012 at 7:51 am Reply
    2. NPC corps

      I am starting to agree with the sentiment that the only proper defense against war declarations is to be in an NPC corp.

      But player owned corps (with more than one person in them) need to be far more appealing than NPC corps.

      This is why just raising the taxes on NPC corps won't work because people will just form their own 1 man corp with 0 taxes.

      February 24, 2012 at 9:48 pm Reply
      1. skullair

        its not the only defense…. you can fight make the best of a bad situation… sadly though large % of eve players only care about how big there wallet is…

        February 24, 2012 at 10:02 pm Reply
  8. hahahahaha

    "4) Do not allow pilots to leave or join a corp in an active war declaration (either target or aggressor)."

    This just proves you don't really play this game. tl:dr Orphanage decs my 1800 man 0.0 alliance and I can't recruit members into my corp?

    February 24, 2012 at 8:59 pm Reply
  9. Kent

    What's the damn point of changing something or protecting someone from war decs? Anyone in highsec can be in an NPC corp and this gives him 100% protection from the war dec.

    You want a corp ? Corp is a entity with a ticker. I want to kill that entity I war dec and kill it. You defend it. You don't want this stuff so what's the point of being in a corp ? You know you can register a chat channel and sit there while in npc corps.

    February 24, 2012 at 9:01 pm Reply
    1. Cynic

      This gives me the idea of making NPC corps on mandatory Homeland Defense rotation. People wanna be in an NPC corp the whole time, 1 weekend a month, 2 weeks a year, those NPC corps are made war targets to each other. (essentially forced faction warfare)

      Meh, just an idea.

      February 24, 2012 at 9:29 pm Reply
    2. M1k3y

      Because people in channels are as likely to troll you as they are to help you, thats why theres player corps, for social interaction, not so you can deal with the crap that griefer corps throw at you.

      February 24, 2012 at 9:36 pm Reply
      1. Kent

        I may remind you about the kick function of the channel administration of player created channels.

        I like the part when you denying you only need a corp for a chat window.

        February 24, 2012 at 11:15 pm Reply
    3. The Observer

      It's a lot more than just a chat channel. It's POS structures, Tax revenue, Shared assets, event markers, etc. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

      Also, not sure if trolling or stupid…..

      February 25, 2012 at 2:01 am Reply
  10. Will

    Bah – its not helpful at all – in MY Empire only CONCORD are able to shoot terrorists, and Concord NEVER allowed that terrorists fight each other. Cause its HIGH sec – no one will harm another player. If they want fights, let them go to low-sec . . . in MY Empire low-sec Concord can't secure the whole space.
    You want fights? Go to LOW-Sec or 0,0 . . . let my Hi-Sec for nonfighting professions . . . and mates – I'm in 0,0 – for fighting . . .

    February 24, 2012 at 9:03 pm Reply
    1. CnC

      I agree. CONCORD should kill all rats and clear all missions in MY Empire. There should be no activation of modules of any kind in MY Empire, because there would be no danger. Ever. CONCORD can clear the whole space, because they are invincible…
      You want to shoot NPCs or run missions? Go to LOW-Sec or 0.0 . . . let my Hi-Sec for nonfighting professions . . . and mates – I'm in 0.0 – for fighting . . .

      February 25, 2012 at 2:39 am Reply
    2. asd

      you must have some serious mental issues, seek help asap

      February 25, 2012 at 9:34 am Reply
  11. Hurr

    In a logical world the empires would look at the violence, destruction, economic impact, and chaos caused by high sec war decs and then look accusingly at CONCORD and ask “what the hell are you doing?”

    Hurrdurr let me apply my RL logic to internet space pixels flown by immortal cartoons.

    February 24, 2012 at 9:04 pm Reply
  12. Kent

    What's the damn point of changing something or protecting someone from war decs? Anyone in highsec can be in an NPC corp and this gives him 100% protection from the war dec.

    February 24, 2012 at 9:09 pm Reply
    1. CnC

      I say allow NPC corps to be wardecced and let the good times roll!

      February 25, 2012 at 5:40 am Reply
  13. No one important

    Having the Faction Navies get involved is an interesting idea, especially if their response time was low. Even more interesting…Faction Warfare agents could give missions to capsuleers to go after "aggressive" corporations. So you're a small corp who gets wardecced, but you end up with a couple dozen allies who the attacking force doesn't know, and won't until they suddently get shot from behind.

    Not saying the above is a good solution, and there needs to be non-fair, non-consensual PVP–even in high-sec–but wardecs need some change to make things More Fun.

    Perhaps the security status of a system could drop with more gankings…but if it drops too much the Faction Navy moves in and enforces much stricter martial law.

    Another option: have wardeccing corps have their members drop security status. You can wardec to your heart's content, but eventually Empire will get sick of you and throw you out until you do something useful (like killing rats in 0.0).

    February 24, 2012 at 9:23 pm Reply
    1. The Observer

      I like the idea of the system getting lower sec status and having Navy ships everywhere all the time if it gets too low (at all celestials?) but having a person lose sec status is a pain in the ass…

      …on the other hand, it might force people to move into low-sec finally, but they would also need to buff low-sec (they already desperately need to do so anyway).

      February 25, 2012 at 1:58 am Reply
  14. iskbot#1337

    i see it crystal-clear through my monocle theses ideas are very good. http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-03-21/123764833

    February 24, 2012 at 10:12 pm Reply
  15. Ridlam

    Simply do away with Concord all together, take the the roll they filled and give it to the players.

    February 24, 2012 at 10:27 pm Reply
  16. liangnuren

    "But at the same time, I think we need a mechanic for players not looking for PvP to have some assistance in dealing with unwanted aggression."

    No, we really don't.

    February 24, 2012 at 10:29 pm Reply
    1. Pirokobo

      Make kill rights transferable, or better, create a market for them.

      February 25, 2012 at 12:32 am Reply
      1. Emergent Patroller

        My point exactly on the previous Blog Banter 32. It should be easier for highsec indy corps who have little or no PVP contacts to hire help through a communal system. I repeat my statement I made back on the BB32: If that were possible I would fly to highsec for more than just shopping trips.

        Crowdsourcing highsec PVP!

        February 25, 2012 at 4:31 am Reply
  17. Darkwater

    Random ideas

    a) Implement a bounty hunter system to sell off kill rights.

    b) For non reciprocated wars, the aggressor can kill without concord interference, but station and gate guns and faction navies will treat you as a criminal. Also, killing targets nets them kill rights on you, which using a) they can possibly hire or pass off to a pro to collect.

    c) same as b) but you get the standard global criminal flag and so are kill-able by anyone for 15 minutes, but still no concord action.

    d) Counter bribe concord to cancel the war. If the aggressor can bribe concord to look the other way, shouldn't the defender be able to bribe them to look their way again?

    e) Allow the defender to hire mercs who can then freely join the war. This then triggers the aggressors to have the same ability, to escalate the conflict.

    f) Institute a new kind of player corp that lies somewhere between NPC corps and current player run corps, in terms of benefits (maybe two corp taxes? NPC gets a cut off the top, plus the CEO can set one for himself), rights (cant anchor pos, cant wardec, limited office rental, ect), and other factors.

    g) No insurance payouts on ships lost by aggressors in a non consentual wardec

    February 24, 2012 at 10:48 pm Reply
  18. Troll Father

    This is how you fix not getting war dec'd:

    1. Stay in an NPC corp
    2. If you still fail and keep getting ganked ask kirith is in his T1 hauler with sleeper loot then don't autopilot.
    3. If you still cannot cut it and have a leaky vagina then just STOP go play WOW.

    February 24, 2012 at 10:59 pm Reply
  19. DarthNefarius

    I'd add to the list: any War Dec's are null & void once the war decking corp becomes closed

    February 24, 2012 at 11:09 pm Reply
  20. concord

    i say allow the decced corp/alliance to hire concord on the war deccing corp.

    February 24, 2012 at 11:10 pm Reply
  21. Imigo

    "one alliance/corporation bribes CONCORD to look the other way as they perform criminal acts on a target alliance/corporation"

    Not quite. The backstory is that CONCORD is an independent police force, not a military force. It only cares about civil matters, not wars. A Wardec is simply a legal registration of a declaration of war on another entity, not CONCORD looking the other way. See http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/War_Declaration for further details.

    This is why a "counter bribe" scenario doesn't fit, because a wardec isn't a bribe in the first place, it's a means of resolving competition between groups. Unfortunately, the listed reasons for declaring war ("resources, trade routes, strategic systems or simple pride") are the exception, not the rule – most wardecs are declared for easy ganks.

    February 24, 2012 at 11:40 pm Reply
    1. guest

      Which makes me wonder why people are trying to change this on the first place

      February 24, 2012 at 11:54 pm Reply
  22. PL Intelligence Ag.

    about 4th point:
    1. Ally A puts spy in Ally B.
    2. Ally A create alt 1 man corp
    3. 1 man corp declare war All B
    4. ????
    5. Profit

    great idea sir!

    February 24, 2012 at 11:47 pm Reply
  23. Random Miner

    It really shows that only pvp'ers are coming up with these ideas. Not allowing people to leave corps at war would only sound ok to a pvp'er, who will keep logging on to look for targets, and who has cheap fitted fighting ships to keep wasting.

    This idea has nothing for an indy corp, who just wants to corp up to pull together buddies to chat and hang out, mine, rat, mission, link hilarious porn, etc.,etc.

    Make the dec'ed corp pay, wait a day….make the dec'ed corp pay again… how do you post that and not see a clear problem with it? And did you pretty much do away with concord all together in there?

    There's a reason why low and null sec exists, but now everyone who's too much of a pussy for real fights wants to be able to grief people more effectively, and so ideas like this are born.

    February 25, 2012 at 12:28 am Reply
    1. Urziel99

      Kirith lives in lowsec, so he's pretty clueless when it comes to decs. He's also not too good at looking at all angles.

      As for as highsec "pvp" the only ones I see who are worth a damn are RvB. If you truly want fights in highsec that's the place to be. Other outfits (privateers, orphanage, Moar Tears) are just looking for ganks, and chances to grief new players since they lack either balls or skill.

      February 25, 2012 at 5:18 am Reply
      1. Tarsas Phage

        You know what I get a good laugh over? The 0.0 types who decry how safe highsec is, but in the same breath rail on highsec wardecers as if they're some major problem.

        I also get a kick out of the random 0.0 alliance scrub who links his home system and invites one to come fight there, no doubt where he can hide behind his blues, his bubbles, his cynos and whatever else. You think if I wander in there someone will say "Oh it's just one guy, let's have an honorable 1v1?" Not damn likely, and I wouldn't expect it. Even better is when you look up the kill record for these guys and 9 times out of 10, you're hard-pressed to find a single kill with < 10 people on it that is also not a pod or noobship.

        So, pot meet kettle.

        RvB, if you've never experienced it, has its own issues which oddly enough, aren't too dissimilar from the same gripes I often hear about highsec wardecers – the station camping, the gate blobs to catch a T1-fitted Rupture, and so on. In the end, everyone on both sides are in it for the same reason and, really, that's more like playing a FPS style "war" than one where you're putting your ship, clone, and resources on the line to fight.

        I think in the end, you just don't like how highsec is magnitudes less black and white than it is in 0.0. In 0.0, you know who your enemy is. You just hate having to account for not having that luxury in highsec. Sounds like a people problem, not a mechanics one.

        February 25, 2012 at 6:25 am Reply
        1. Urziel99

          So, you are either ignorant to the broken mechanics of highsec or you exploit them yourself. They hide behind CONCORD using neutral RR and call that elite pvp? Smells like cowardice and hypocrisy in my book since these same groups whine about the risk averse nature of carebears while they hide their precious logistics in npc corps.

          Oh, and the last time Moar Tears decced my nullsec alliance they got jack. They aren't a problem for us, just a annoyance since we can adapt far more readily than the small corps that live in highsec. Tell me these corps are actually in it for "good fights" when they exploit these kinds of mechanics and I will call you an idiot to your face. They want the gank and the grief, because that's all they are willing to risk.

          As to your come to 0.0 schtick, they would never come because they would not have CONCORD to hide behind. Their logistics would not be safe from assault. So I do not invite them, they are unworthy to set foot in Deklein, much less any part of 0.0

          February 25, 2012 at 5:52 pm Reply
          1. skullair

            Honestly…. High sec wardecers claim null and low suck…. low claims high + Null suck….Null claims high sec+low sec+ Dronespace sucks.

            This argument will never end BUT some one who knows nothing on war decs low+null pvpers should not try to change a high sec persons pvp. Dont Fuck with peoples shit…

            PVP is good no mater were it is…. =D

            February 25, 2012 at 8:45 pm
  24. varimeana

    The one thing you mentioned was very true, and perhaps warrents a specific mechanic. The time it makes the biggest impact is when a big strong group dec's a small group. Allowing corps/ alliances to pay concord to cease the war could give two major advantages to the system.

    If you set a price of x million isk per member to cease the wardec, minus X million per member of war dec'ing corp you could develope a system that a small corp could get out of the war for cheap (or simply invalidate it), but a big alliance would have to pay handsomely.

    another benefit to this is that when people know the mechanics, it would help set a price for 'ransom'… I have 1000 members, war dec'd by 10 members, I have to pay 9.9 billion to end the war, the 10 member corp could say give me 1 billion and I'll end it.

    Varimeana
    Ghost Raven Industries [6R1ND]

    February 25, 2012 at 1:12 am Reply
    1. another RA pilot

      ideally the cost of 'ransom' should be 0.1 of the cost of wardec

      so say 100m per head to wardec someone
      10m per head to get out of wardec

      February 25, 2012 at 3:06 pm Reply
  25. CnC

    1. Remove War Decs.

    2. Require all corporations to either (1) be a patron of a major NPC empire, or (2) freelance

    3a. If aligned with an empire, FFA against all other empire's targets. You are navy protected while in your space. Seriously buff high security police forces, and allow them the ability to track down cloakies after a delay (90seconds on any single grid in system).
    3b. All faction standings to stations, as well as agents, skills reducing market fees, etc, require patronage to one of the NPC empires (for the station you are participating with).
    3c. If freelance, remain CONCORD protected but no access to agents, skills reducing fees with stations (market fee reduction), skills reducing refining waste, etc.

    4. Make every empire an island, surrounding each with LowSec access required to move between the empires. Make multiple paths through in each direction, with creative alternate routes. Allow LowSecurity space (all LowSec space) to change hands via Faction Warfare. Make each system always contested by only 2 factions (so all Caldari is a no no). Provide faction navy response to patrons in lowsec when aggressed (faster, smaller ships).

    5. Delay freelance pilot CONCORD response by 10 seconds in high security space.

    Make empire more dangerous for the non-participatory, and cut-throat but survivable for those seeking that way of life. Create navies that are nearly as powerful as CONCORD but escapable (albeit not survivable) to allow a milder form of gameplay. Remove local in Nullsec. Allow scanning of cloaked ships (though you still have to find em). Make EVE dangerous again!

    February 25, 2012 at 1:38 am Reply
    1. KKK

      I love the idea of a time-limit on cloaks! Lets say you can stay 10 minutes cloaked before you uncloak, you can re-cloak after lets say, 1 minute, or warp off and cloak somewhere else. Making it based on grid is simply too buggy and manipulative (you could stay on the edge of one grid and once you uncloaked gone into the other grid and instantly recloaked). Large fleetfights would've been destroyed pretty much as the grids are even more buggy and dangerous…

      There should also be a ship specific for constant-cloaking. It costs roughly the same as a cov ops and cannot fit guns, electronic warfare or cov cynos/ cynos. That way they make no threat, aslong as you know your enemy is in one and it still makes it possible to monitor a system or spot without the fear of diying if you go away for a few hours.

      Also the time-limit could be higher on covert op cloaks, like 15-20 minutes.

      February 25, 2012 at 2:19 am Reply
      1. CnC

        Cloaking should be similar to Star Trek (the original) where you can see them on instruments, but there appears to be nothing there. DSCAN and probes should clearly show where cloakies are, but you actually have to get close enough to decloak them and allow your targeting sensors to lock.

        This would even introduce shadowing of cloaking ships where one cloaking ship could have another following close behind, and if the front ship isn't watching his sensors that he won't know a trap is about to spring!

        The above was just a shooting from the hip about empire though… There seriously needs to be some danger reintroduced into EVE. I'm a nullsec pilot, and between empire with alts and jump bridges/intel channels… its rare that I'm actually in any real danger when not PvPing actively. Once you get bookmarks on gates for the regions you are living in, even solo/scouted travel rarely leads to a death when actively camped.

        February 25, 2012 at 2:33 am Reply
  26. BOO HOO

    00 players complaining about something that happens in highsec (that they dont care about since its highsec you pubbies)…

    Came expecting a well written article by a professional journalist.

    Left Fapping to tears. (carebear and 00 1337 pvper carebear tears)

    February 25, 2012 at 1:58 am Reply
  27. Etiologist

    I don't really see an issue with wardecs at all. If you're a small corp, and there's a big one, and they're pasting you, then Harden the F*** Up, and either grow some balls or get some friends; or some money to pay someone else to fight them.

    Conversely, if you're a large corporation or alliance, and you're wardecking an alliance that is too small to fight you, then what the hell are you complaining about? Stop being a b**** and go after a target closer to your size. You mentioned that wardecking a small corp doesn't benefit them; you're right, it doesn't, and its' not supposed to. It encourages them to fight people their own size and not bully the small guy.

    EVE Online caters to the noobs enough. They're constantly nerfing the larger ships, pissing off the veterans that not only have already made CCP what it is through their money, but also make the game what it is, by running these alliances, and creating those out of game tools that you love so much, things, like this website. EVE online is not at a loss for corporations, or new start up corporations. No, they're not all getting destroyed by wardecks.They're all over the place, and they're surviving just fine; and those that thrive do so because EVE Online favors the strong. That's why we love EVE.

    And if wardecking people in Highsec isn't fun, then go out into low sec or 0.0 instead of hiding behind a net of safety and beating on the noobs.

    February 25, 2012 at 3:33 am Reply
  28. Mountain/molehill

    Ffs

    War Decs work absolutely fine.

    Everyone can leave a corp with 2 clicks. HTFU or GTFO.

    1. All are safe in npc corp.
    2. Joining a corp is completely optional, there are risks and rewards. Wanting the rewards and not the risks is quite simply piss poor.
    3. War decs require the target to work together and collaborate.
    4. Corps thinking they can grow and develop in the eve universe without this challange are missing the essence of what eve is. Ultimately, learning to stick things out, work together, getting on voice comms, basics of pvp, planning for decs etc will strengthen your corps.
    5. If you want a 'friendly corp where mates can hang out' join npc corp, minimise npc chat and make your own chat channel.

    TIPS

    a. Create a war dec plan for your corp.
    b. get everyone to join estel arador corp and get 3 clones (requires 24 hours to drop roles and train infomorph). Make having clones a recruitment requirement. Jump to no implants clone as war goes live. You are now not going to lose implants etc and can die with little conequence – this is the essence of being a capsuleer.
    C. Generate a corp war fund. use it to buy basic combat ships before wars start. Blacbirds are good example. Can be fit for 10 mill, can jam at 80 – 100km, are particularly horrible as groups of 5 or 6 and are major problems for 'pussy' war decs where you have neutral reppers.
    D. Add war targets to address book so you know how many online.
    E. Go away and fight – base away from normal area, make deccers come to you, its their war after all! If they base out a system have scout in there. If they aren't attacking run your ops as normal.
    F. Work together – use neutral alts, scout for each other, run operations as a group, with a scout.

    February 25, 2012 at 8:27 am Reply
    1. guest

      lol,
      if "war dec corp" neutral scout see 2-3 people from hostile corp in local,
      "Wardecking" char never login or immediately logoff…

      February 26, 2012 at 10:12 am Reply
  29. anatlasgoon

    Not broken, don't fix it.

    Seriously, this is like the third article I've said this in, and they've all had to do with wardecs. I don't know why everybody is under the impression that wardecs ought to be changed just because small corps can abandon corp to effectively end the war. If you want meaningful PVP in high sec, don't wardec an 8-man incursion corp. Christ.

    February 25, 2012 at 9:28 am Reply
  30. another RA pilot

    i reckon removing cyno jammer from Jita will fix all the issues with wardecs

    February 25, 2012 at 3:09 pm Reply
  31. sour

    "It would be as if crime families in major cities could pay the police to look the other way as they blew up buildings and shot at each other in the streets"

    errr soz to break it to u, but thats exactly whats happening in rl as well. same happens when crimelords set up their drug store in a neighborhood, or start a trafficking business. Indeed sometimes the police is participating actively when the pay is good enough…! :ppp

    February 25, 2012 at 5:16 pm Reply
  32. Anonymouse

    Or we could remove wardecs altogether and implement a new highsec pvp system:

    How about a toggle (settable in dock only and on a suitably long timer) that allows someone to toggle the concord response to aggression against them? 'They've turned off their distress systems, the fight is on!' That a player, fleet, corp, or alliance has their 'concord assist' toggle off should be clearly visible or confirmable to others.

    The only caveat is that once you turn off your distress systems, you become a valid target to anyone else until you turn it back on. Also, when you join a fleet with it off, you should be notified that the fleet isn't concord protected.

    If you want to add an additional layer to this, you could add standings to it. 'Respond to red attacks' 'Do not respond to OJ attacks' 'Respond to neuts' 'respond to blues' 'respond to dark blues' Could add a new layer to highsec where reds can fight it out. This would only work if we could see other group's standings towards us though…

    February 25, 2012 at 7:31 pm Reply
  33. Michael Meio

    Wardecs are almost fine as they are.

    But wars need a winner. AND…
    I would have Concord to blow up anyone, including their friends (other than the directly involved parties), that gets involved in it.
    Very simple:
    -Corps/alliances will have initial base and earn warpoints.. Like the infamous AUR with a twist, a very hot twist. A war rank is created.
    -To wardec you need to make a deposit which is a minimum standard if you're not wealthy or a percentage of assets or ISK… or better yet, Loyalty Points (maybe).. In any case, something meaty other than just a standard amount of ISK.
    -Wardec is in place.
    -All pew and laughs. Some tears too.
    -You bring blues in fleet to RR or do anything that smells like exploiting of mechanics, etc.. Your whole fleet gets Concorded. Automatic loss of war. A special number of warpoints is awarded to winner. Hmm.. I would even consider expulsion from Empire for a while. If someone out of the interested parts tries to play smart, RR or anything even while not in fleet, yes… singled out and Concorded as is.
    -In the end, Concord declares a winner based on some strange magical formula which gives less points to easier kills (of course, popping transports or any falling in griefing tactics would give like 0.001 points, being 1v1or "most balanced encounters" the higher point award). Also, deposit is returned to the original wardeker.
    -Industrials and their kind will offer zero loot during wardec when attacked by the enemy. Remember, very little warpoints.
    -Ah… When you win, you receive the incredible ammount of zero warpoints. Those warpoints are already there for you earn them by encounters or battles. Not by simply wardekin', popping 1 or 2 scared noobs and be done. You win close to nada by doing that.
    -You never lose warpoints. You only gain through winning wars. This way, corps or alliances which never wardec or never win wars for any reason, will not be degraded.

    Some questions remain… What's the deposit for? Well as I don't see a substantial difference between a mutual or non-mutual war, maybe both parts should add to the pile. Maybe even the deposit could be wiped off.. I can't think of a reason why Concord should be charging for a wardec if this method is applied.

    This way, bigger alliances/corps wardekin' all over will be a stupid waste of time and ISK as they will receive very little points on unbalanced encounters. Stupid "wardogs" will be wasting time and isk griefing noob/industrial corps even if they win the war, as they will receive close to nothing warpoints or loot. The number of "declarable" wars could also be limited time/quantity-wise.

    Sounds easy.. some could try and wardec own corps to earn warpoints but still, as it is based on percentages, both must be sizable enough and there may be not many capable of doing so. Staged wardecs could be a problem but maybe not too big. Having corps limited to 2 wardecs involving each other for a time period could be a good idea.

    Or not.

    February 25, 2012 at 9:10 pm Reply
    1. Mimosa

      Not bad… not bad at all.

      February 25, 2012 at 11:18 pm Reply
    2. Guest

      -You bring blues in fleet to RR or do anything that smells like exploiting of mechanics, etc.. Your whole fleet gets Concorded. Automatic loss of war. A special number of warpoints is awarded to winner. Hmm.. I would even consider expulsion from Empire for a while. If someone out of the interested parts tries to play smart, RR or anything even while not in fleet, yes… singled out and Concorded as is.

      abuseable….
      if i am in war…. i am not allowed to fleet up with anybody from outside my alliance?? – stupid idea
      or in the other way, if you want to end the war, fleet up with someone from outside your alliance…

      February 26, 2012 at 11:53 am Reply
      1. Michael Meio

        "…abuseable….
        if i am in war…. i am not allowed to fleet up with anybody from outside my alliance?? – stupid idea
        or in the other way, if you want to end the war, fleet up with someone from outside your alliance…"

        Exacto.. you will not be able to fleet with no one who's not in the war agreement.. It is the opposite what's cowardish and ultimately, the most stupid mechanics exploitation in the current wardec system. It must be fixed, period (and it will be)

        Yes, you could attempt on ending the war this way, "…fleet up with someone from outside your alliance…" Concord will declare you as loser, war ends and you can continue as normal. Do you really think is better to fight a docked enemy?.. and, if you're on the opposite side, would you enjoy being docked just because some superior force is waiting for you out there?…

        Yeah, PROBABLY NOT!

        Come back with something better.

        February 26, 2012 at 5:57 pm Reply
  34. Azran Zala

    Your understanding behind the game "Lore" behind why concord turn a blind eye to capsuleer wars is flawed.

    The Yulai convention/CONCORD was created & agreed apon by each of the 4 major empires as a nuetral policing agency to prevent either side from abusing the power or support of the capsulear community to gain an upper hand or steam roll the other. Aswell as to prevent & protect innocent parties from being caught in the crossfire of agression between two capsuleer organisations.

    Paying CONCORD is not a bribe to look the other way, its an application fee for requesting a sanctioned war, allowing one capsuleer organisation to persue a grievance they have with another, but bound my certain restrictions and laws to protect innocent bystanders from getting caught in the crossfire.

    as far as eve lore is concerned, CONCORD was never created to protect capsuleers, it was created to protect the empires FROM capsuleers.

    February 25, 2012 at 10:31 pm Reply
    1. Azran Zala

      Also Concord are actually not "invincible" their ships arn't actually (as far as lore is concerned, but CCP did go and give them a huge buff about 3 or so years ago) any more superior than those flown by capsuleers.

      Their actual true strengh comes from their incredible response time, they have some technology that allows them to relocate and reinforce their fleets instantly accross the universe to whereever they are needed, even cynojammed empire systems, to neutralise any threats before they can grow out of hand or recieve reinforcements beyond what concord can handle themselves.

      Its a closely gaurded secret that not even the empires are privey too. Some speculate they where given some advanced jump/bridge technology from the Jovians. Others believe its a hidden function built into the jump gate networks.

      February 25, 2012 at 11:23 pm Reply
  35. Mono

    I think all those points have merit, i do however the arbitary cost of a war should also be changed.

    i maintain a isk per character should be bought in. 100k per character (in both corps/alliances) is a very reasonable fee. This way large alliances have to pay 100's of millions per war (even on small corp war decs) bu they will be protected by the same fee.

    February 25, 2012 at 10:56 pm Reply
  36. just a pilot

    well those so called wardec corps are a lame excuse for pvp but hey so are 24/7 afk cloakers
    fact is you learn to deal with em you ahve an afk claoker you switch system to rat/mine
    you have a wardec you use npc alts

    i mean i am used to being wardecced al lthe time but i cyno to a neutral lowsec system with isntadock and then switch to my alt and take shit the rest of the way

    afk cloakers ? well i just go pvp or if i want to rat i just switch system
    but hey maybe that just makes me lame

    is it isn't about the gamemechanics
    it is about the wardeccer wanting a riskfree target
    it's about the guy that spends the game being cloaked 24/7
    and it's about the people finding ways to avoid those

    February 26, 2012 at 9:27 pm Reply
  37. Wotif

    What if the cost of starting a wardec was related to the difference in alliance sizes? Ie, the bigger the difference in size, the more expensive it is? Should a 1000 man alliance declare war on a 10 man alliance just to be a douche, then the cost is prohibitive. Also, the same the other way round, when those little pissant alliances declare war on the big alliances just to get a gank or two in highsec but knowing full well they will hide behind concord and never really face the big alliance in anything resembling a real fight, the cost is also high. Only when the ratio of declarer vs target is close are the costs lower, thus encouraging wars of more equal size and not rewarding the wankers.

    February 27, 2012 at 11:20 am Reply
  38. Muul Udonii

    Why not just make the war end after 24 hours if the other entity doesn't agree to it? That way you can only be completely pwned for 50% of the time, unless you want to be.

    February 27, 2012 at 11:49 am Reply
  39. slothen

    oh hey, another person that doesn't know how hisec wars work posting on how to fix them. This is even worse than this article http://www.evenews24.com/2012/02/19/poetic-discou

    February 27, 2012 at 4:26 pm Reply
  40. Falcon

    Well I guess CCP can simply just let all 0.0 alliance to deal with these pitiful High sec dweller by making the cost of War Deccing Sov alliances to be at least a Billion with an additional 100 million per system under sov.

    Oh and be allowed to use Cynos to hotdrop players during war decs. That should make things interesting.

    March 20, 2012 at 8:06 am Reply

Leave a Reply