Devblog: War Declaration Changes - The War Adjacent to Christmas


(Mizhara Del'thul) #264

Well if either were even remotely competent, then still no. “War Dec Community” my entire arse. What we haven’t got any real useful data on is what exactly is causing the poor player retention. Brisc is just riding his pet cause, furiously wanking his CSM tag without actually providing anything but that very first initial data point “players don’t come back after wars are over”, and Falcon/CCP has time and time again shown that they have about as much understanding of their own datasets as concussed marmots, because they don’t actually look at the totality in the game, looking for the core causes of concern. Examples would include some of the more disastrous balancing choices and how they’ve repeatedly ruined ships and gameplay because they didn’t understand what the real problems were.

In this case, they jumped the gun. If wardecs were the actual cause for poor player retention, a week of going offline would not be enough to make people stay out of the game permanently. There’s something else, far more fundamental and problematic. at play when so many can just log off for a bit and then find no reason to return when the danger is over. My money is on the simple fact that highsec gameplay is frankly not good enough to keep people invested. Who the hell has ever come back from a hiatus in Eve going “Oh I really missed running L4s and mining in a Retriever guys. I tell you what.” The core problem isn’t that wardecs push people out of the game for a week (although that is something that needs addressing, don’t get me wrong), it’s that the gameplay is so ■■■■ that they don’t come back afterwards.

Don’t get me wrong, wardecs need drastic changes, but it needs changes towards providing the defenders counterplay and options, not towards making people immune to them. That is counter to everything Eve ever has been about, and it runs counter to player interaction in its most Eve Online form: Conflict.

(Solecist Project) #265

The fact that there are people who refuse to fight back needed to be addressed. There is no point in providing counter-play for those who do not wish to counter-play, and NO, providing what people call incentives is NOT a solution to this problem at all. The coming change addresses the people who do not wish to fight. Everything else comes afterwards. Calm your tits, Miz.

(Irridan) #266


Proper solutions are:

  • increased cost over time
  • cooldown on repeated war decc

A pirate Corp would stick a Poco with 0 tax somewhere, and gl finding it.


PS. and start addressing the issue when a non war player RR the agresding player without consequences.

Too many ppl lots their ships because aggressor was under few nestors w/o aggro at all. Gl with that.

(Cloon McCloon) #267

Just take it out. Remove it completely until you have a good and fully developed system to replace it.

(Mizhara Del'thul) #268

Why exactly should I weep for those who are unwilling to play the game when there’s an element of risk to it? The solutions are not providing immunity for them. The solutions are in finding ways to make the game enjoyable to them during a conflict. Some will never enjoy the conflict but I would say those people should probably be playing something else and good riddance.

(Herzog Wolfhammer) #269

So step one is the “skin in the game” approach oft proposed by the gentleman and scholar (and the only player I know who can successfully hunt an AFK cloaker) known as Dracvlad.

So to put a structure in space means you become eligible. Fair enough. Let that weigh into the decision.
But were it up to me, I would have put an I-Spy element into the matter. For example, it would be boring to simply “pull up a list of wardec eligible corporations”. I would have made something of an entosis-like module that has to be used on said structure in space but is destructible like some of our other deployables. It would require some PVP to prevent the PVP, if you can figure on what I mean. It would also mean a lot for having a structure in a wormhole. That would be a secret structure then, but if discovered and “tagged” would be a different matter. But overall, imagine “PVP to prevent the PVP” and you have PVP.
But I don’t work here anyway.


Here the fun part lads.

Friendly HS gankers ( wardeck corps ) have started transfering random structures to the corps they wardecked.

Now under current mechanics you can not get rid of said structures:

  1. Transfers don’t work if your under a wardeck
  2. If you try to kill it yourself the agressors stop you
  3. If you try to decomission it - they reinforce it = timer is gone.

CCP, how will you adress this ?

Will we have an option to instantly destroy any structures that have been transfered to us days before the patch ( 6 days or less ) ?

(Herzog Wolfhammer) #271

Oh feel the burn…

(Nevyn Auscent) #272

If they keep reinforcing it and dont then blow it up, register a harassment ticket. Because you are then taking reasonable steps to get away from a wardec.
Ask in the ticket for a gm to blow it up for you as you are happy to lose the structure/s to end the wardec.

After the gms get 50 from different corps all saying that, I’d lay odds they will oblige and blow your structures up.


It should not come up to that.

This should not have even been a thing to talk about.

They should have introduced the “Require permision on a case by case basis to accept any/all structure transfers” the moment they released the key-notes at Eve Vegas.

(Syeed Ameer Ali) #274

You will note that I addressed this comment to the developers. You are not a developer, Brisc Rubal, and your personal animosity to wardeccers is well known. You are the guy that suggested wardecs be removed altogether.

The suggestion that you could advocate for our point of view is absurd, to say the least. Do what you do, man, I don’t dislike you, but a little respect and honesty would be appreciated.

(Nevyn Auscent) #275

It’s almost like it takes time to code and check such a thing. Cant imagine how it could though.

(zluq zabaa) #276

Not quite right. The “purely social corporation” can still use alt-structures to run industry or such and move their mains around in safety. It’s really just a “get a few structure alt corps” kind of situation, that’s it.

On top of that, the December change is purely reactive, not visionary. Yes, the experience of people jumping into wardec-gatecamps and chosing to stay logged off, is not a good one. However, contrary to how the Dev Blog linked by @CCP_Falcon suggests, this was not the “optimal” choice and certainly this change is only a solution if you consider the first rule of EVE void.

There is a much simpler approach to war decs, which focusses more on motivating both attackers and defenders to make meaningful choices and to actually make war decs interesting, rather than more one dimensional.

p.s. and let’s say all the arguments that are brought up against these changes are bullcrap, then how the hell did it take CCP so many years to stumble across the numbers and decide to do something about it? It must feel really bad for the people who hated the old mechanics and felt they suffered under them for years, when really nothing has changed and many years later CCP suddenly decides this is a huge problem which needs solving right away.

I doubt CCP can win their hearts with this change, because essentially it only proves that they did not listen to their players for years and years. Rather than doing what they could have done years ago, they should really have come up with the much better, forward-looking design for wardecs right away.


Remember that they tend not to announce something untill they are done with the heavy work and are down to polishing.


Any neutra character helping in any way / shape / form a character in a WAR fight should be considered a criminal offense and getting concorded.

That will in some way try to balance the fights.


A Corp attacks your structure with passive tank BS’s and 5-20 neutra nestors / guardians.
The logi go suspect, but they can not be attacked by the structure.

Yeah, it’s balanced.

(Geo Eclipse Oksaras) #279

With the change, the only way to help defend, is to have a structure of your own. otherwise if in hisec, risk getting concorded.


Neutral logi will go criminal instead of suspect starting next week ? That’s the only change that would help at this point.

(Geo Eclipse Oksaras) #281

I would assume so.


Hope so, but douth it.

War decks kills = require isk to rebuild ships / assets = plex sold.

Buttom line is $ ?

(Geo Eclipse Oksaras) #283

If Neutral Logi isn’t attached to a corp/alliance with a structure, then it should go kabloom when trying to help.
@CCP_Falcon can you confirm logi’s will be vulnerable?