This Wardec proposal addresses specific concerns stated by CCP in the CSM 13 minutes (as noted in this post ), those being:
- Risk Reward: wardecs “extremely skewed in favor of aggressors”, “with low risk”
- Game Activity: “people involved in wars will simply not play whilst the war is ongoing”
- Defender Engagement: “want to see a scenario where the defenders who may not normally be interested in wars would engage in them”
- Player Retention: “war declarations allow a small number of players to negatively affect a huge number of people”, “considerable activity drops in all activities during the war. They also show that the low activity continues after the war ends”, and “it was clear this mechanic was having a significant impact on player recruitment and retention”
Intent is to decrease the negative impacts of wardecs and increase the positive ones. Design goals listed here and here . Ideas have been adopted from other posts and sources over the years, they’re not all original to me.
It uses these factors:
- Skin in the Game: attackers place assets at risk which have a meaningful risk of loss
- Risk/Reward: war outcomes are less predictable and offer potential rewards for both sides
- Scalability: wars require more focus on targets, so declaring more wars increases risk of loss
- Defender Agency: defenders have meaningful methods to set their own war goals
- Participation: defender members each have viable options to take action and earn rewards
To reduce screen scroll, each section is in a spoiler, click the arrow/Title to open or close.
**War Objectives and Point System**
A key feature is the War Actions interface and point system. An attacker always has the same objectives: Destroy target assets and interdict the target from successful activities. The defender has a new set of options, the War Actions missions.
When war is declared, the defender is given the choice to unlock various War Action goals. This resembles the daily AIR Opportunity interface (so using existing/familiar code). The defender pays to unlock War Action categories for their members to pursue. These are daily actions similar to AIR - mine X amount, kill X NPCs, Earn X LP, etc. Possible additions would include completing DED combat sites, or conducting successful exploration. This gives the defender various ways to remain active in their own playstyles while conducting the war.
Once a defender member begins a daily task, that task is ‘active’ until complete. If the member completes the task, they score a War Action point. If the task is begun, but not completed by downtime, it is considered ‘interdicted’ and scores a point for the attacker. Tasks can only be completed in High sec.
Both attacker and defender score points for ship or structure kills. Something like .5 point for a shuttle or corvette, 1 for a frigate, 2 destroyer, etc. When an attacker kills a defender ship, any ‘active’ tasks that defender had running are interdicted and their points are scored for the attacker.
War allies can only score points for kills and interdictions. They do not receive daily missions.
**War Eligibility, War Bonds and War Debt**
War Indemnity Bonds provide voluntary war eligibility and also set up part of the reward system for the winner. In order to become war eligible, a corp/alliance has to post a War Indemnity Bond equal to 50 million ISK plus 2 million per member. (Or any other set of values that sets a lower initial cost for small entities, but a higher cost for large entities.)
At the time war is declared, the “Member Fee” is calculated on a per-capita basis and added to the War Report. Any new recruits during the war must have their member fee paid, either by themselves or the corp. Any member leaving the corp must pay their Member Fee into the corp wallet (or War Wallet if a separate one is implemented). If they have insufficient ISK they incur War Debt - 50% of all income is deducted until their War Debt is paid. Allies for a war need their own War Indemnity Bond.
The total War Bonds per side make up the pool of ISK to be assigned at the conclusion of the war.
**War Resolution**
At war end, the War Action Points are totalled per entity on a per capita basis. This limits the impact of sheer numbers on success. Higher per-capita point total wins the war. Winner(s) are paid a portion of the losers War Indemnity Bond in proportion to the total point score. Eg. if winner has 1.50 points per capita and loser has 0.75, winner receives 2/3 of the losers War Indemnity Bond.
Loser then has War Debt until their WIB is restored, 50% of all income goes to restore the WIB. I’d recommend entities have a War Wallet where funds are taken from to pay for Member Fees and War Debt.
**War Incentives and Reputation**
In order to provide incentive for corps to become war eligible, a new ‘Reputation’ system is added. This system has two aspects, Reputation and Reliability.
Each of these aspects has a Corp component and a Personal component. Members earn their own personal Rep and Reliability by completing their own tasks, and a portion of their gain/loss also adds to the Corp total.
Reputation is based on winning wars. For each win, 1 Corp Reputation is added, for each loss, 0.5 Corp Reputation lost. Members receive 0.5 for a win, lose 0.25 for a loss.
Reliability is based on completing War Actions. Various (fractional) points assigned for kills or completing War Tasks. Points are lost for being killed or for failing a task. The corp receives 1/4 of whatever the member earns/loses.
Half a point is deducted from Personal R&R if leaving a corp during an active war.
R&R scores are in the range 0 to 4, no negatives. Reputation gives a % bonus to ISK and LP earned, only when in a player corp. Reliability gives a % bonus to Mining, Evermarks, Standings gains and discount on the hisec NPC POCO tax rate.
A member gets his Reliability bonus (0 to 4%) when in any player corp. They get the Reputation bonus when in a War Eligible Corp. Their Personal R&R is added to the Corp R&R, up to 8% total. They get a 50% bonus to both when an actual war is on. So a member could have up to a 12% total bonus when part of a war.
Along with the War Bond payouts, this gives all corps and individual members incentive to participate in war activities. Along with war debt, it discourages corp hopping to escape wars. It also provides incentive for players to hop in to wars to increase their personal ratings.
**War Eligibility Modifiers**
Non-eligible corps pay a 5% Concord Protection tax (similar to the 11% NPC corp tax).
Along with voluntarily posting a War Indemnity Bond to become eligible, entities become eligible under these conditions:
- Any Corp with over 100 members must post a WIB before accepting more members.
- Any Alliance with over 150 members must post a WIB.
- Placing a Quantum Core in a Structure requires a WIB posted (see War Structure Modifiers).
Alternatively, exceeding any of these restrictions could post the WIB automatically, and the entity incurs War Debt until the WIB is paid for.
**War Structure Modifiers**
Structures are no longer a requirement for war. Corps can place one structure with a Limited Core. A corp of 15 or more members can place a single Medium Structure no closer than 10,000 KM from another object (meaning they’re not on-grid with anything). The Limited Core will cost only 50 Million ISK and doesn’t support all functions. Eg. no rigs can be installed or something.
The intent here is to give smaller, non-war eligible corps a home base and some experience with managing structures before they put large amounts at risk. So limit it however you like.
One issue is the usual “we need to be able to remove any structure”. I’d say either the size/core limits and the 10,000KM distance remove this issue, or create a mechanic to issue a War Threat for 200 million ISK. War Threat gives defender 3 Weeks to take down that structure, otherwise they automatically become War Eligible (and incur War Debt if needed).
**How It All Works**
Attacker pays 10 million ISK to declare a war. High fees aren’t needed as the War Indemnity Bond is now the primary cost. Defender receives war notice, gets the War Actions choices, and pays 5 million ISK each to unlock various War Actions. These are just NPC fees / ISK sinking.
Each defender member gets their daily display of War Actions, like AIR Opportunities. Total War Action Points for each side are updated in the War Report. Since Attackers now need to pay more attention to tracking down and eliminating defender War Acts, mass wardeccing becomes less sustainable and profitable (since they’re now effectively paying the defender for losses).
Defender corps now have long-term benefits for remaining active during wars, as well as viable methods to achieve those rewards. Each member has their own Personal R&R ratings, so they have incentive to participate also.
Size disparity is addressed by the per-capita score at the end (small corps have fewer targets to score points against, whereas large corps need many more points to maintain per-capita totals). Removal of structure/core requirements enables small corps to participate as either attacker or defender.
Defender corps and members both have agency and multiple valid choices to make, which increases engagement and participation chance.
As stated, this isn’t intended to be the ‘one true Wardec’ solution. It shows that Wardec problems can be reduced by addressing the specific issues involved, namely Defender Agency, Risk/Reward, Scalability and Defender Engagement.
Wardecs by nature (always at attackers choice) will cause some degree of problems. Increasing defender activity and player retention can only occur if the defender has viable options that result in a ‘win’ from their own viewpoint.
As usual, the test of any new mechanic isn’t how it might work, but how it could be broken. So feel free to hammer away on how you’d go about breaking a system like this, and/or make your own counter-proposals.
Related Side issues not considered here:
- Citadel defenses, ally war mechanics (eg. the allied logi problem)
- Mercenary defense/attack/protection contracts
- Bounty system for high sec only, pilot/corp/alliance targets
(I also skipped some fiddly bits regarding point scoring, payouts, debt, how allies calculate into the payouts, etc. This doesn’t need to be a full implementation blueprint, just a direction guide.)