Devblog: War Declaration Changes - The War Adjacent to Christmas


(Brisc Rubal) #288

You said nobody on the CSM was in a war dec corporation. That’s true. But that doesn’t mean that none of us have reached out and talked to folks, taken the time to get to know the issues on both sides, and the like. That’s the point of having player representatives - they represent. That’s what I do.

I don’t have any personal animosity towards the war dec community. I’ve said I don’t understand why they enjoy what they do, but I say the same thing about soccer fans, and I don’t hate them either. I just don’t get it. And I have not advocated or suggested that war decs be removed all together. What I said was that the data that CCP showed us was enough to justify turning them off until they could be completely revamped.

There’s a place for war decs in EVE and I hope that whatever CCP comes up with ensures that place still exists.

Like the WH guys, I’m willing to represent the concerns of any community to the Devs, even ones I’m not in, because that’s my job. And hey, like with WHs, I may be the worst person to represent all of you, but there isn’t anybody else willing to step up and do it as far as I can tell. So it’s me or nothing.

The joys of democracy.


Incursion = PVE

Wardecks or any sort of player vs player ( PVP ) combat is just that = PVP

PvE = you don’t go suspect if the person your repping is not engaged in combat with another player ( and even then incursion logi should have safeties GREEN always - as a fleet rule )
PvP = the person your repping is involved in player vs player fight ( has the red combat timer AND NOT the yellow combat timer for pve ). You need to have your safeties yellow to rep that person.

Before you post a reply make sure you know how the game mechanics work?

(Arrendis) #290

Remote assistance checks for timers before giving a flag of its own. It’s still going to be making the same checks. Also, good job ignoring the anti-ganker side of it.

(Nevyn Auscent) #291

You know that if corp a is at war with b & c. B & C go suspect if they rep each other during a fight right. This will cause them to go criminal instead…

(Le Mittani) #292

Maybe you should HTFU pubbie

(Saeger1737) #293

Welcome to world of EveCraft

(Saeger1737) #294

If you’ve never done any of the content why should you deny other people for doing it…

As a csm your supposed to support content of all types not make Eve online worse… Your literally getting rid of veteran players to fill space for alpha accounts…

And if your a nullsec guy why do you care about highsec wardecs, there are so many active ways around a wardec that you can do that you can still play the game and be apart of content.

This applies limitations to content… And creates a void in a market already thinned out by past broadstroke patches that have effected Mercs and wardeccers alike…

More new players die in the failing to be fun faction warfare system then in wardecs and there are graphs and data to prove it… Structure bashes are still LAME, BORING and DULL. Yet you want to subject people to this endlessly in order to protect your miners in highsec.

As I said before

Welcome to World of EveCraft

(xxx BrokenArrow) #295

this is the best thing ever glad to see

(Syeed Ameer Ali) #296

How rude!

(zluq zabaa) #297

That would be good, but if possible, I’d like the CSM to do a bit more than hope. Specifically, it would be interesting to keep an eye on activity of the players in top wardec corporations, highsec-traveling/living non-structure-holding corps and wether we see more or maybe less structures destroyed in highsec.

The change that is coming, is intended to ease on a specific subset of players and it would be really good to know if that goal was achieved and wether it had any negative implications on activity level of others.

No need to make any guesses here, the numbers after a while would be interesting.

Also, if war decs are supposed to have a place in EVE, it seems the number one priority in that field, is to take some of the proposals regarding more interesting and rewarding designs for war decs as an inspiration and make sure that CCP does not stick too long to this interim solution. As we all know, “first iteration” can easily turn into permanent state if this isn’t put on the table.

(Avaelica Kuershin) #298

That would not work out very well. Under the present system those of us in large null groups are subject to wars. Restricting ability to declare war based on owning hi sec structures could mean we are free to act in hi sec without war. Do you really want that?

(Quor Dresden) #299

What content does it limit? You mentioned it a few times in your post with zero specifics. Pvp is basically unchanged. Possibly improved, now wars may continue for longer periods. It was even mentioned in the patch notes I believe.

(Eric Kalfren) #300

The sandbox shrinks more and more.

(Domunos) #301

I want to add my opinion and hope it is factored into the final version of a “Fixed” war dec system, I understand there is no stopping this change.
I believe in the vision of war that CCP has in this official Helpdesk post:

Common Misconceptions about Exploits

Constant War Declarations
War Declarations are a risk that every player corporation has to face and they are under no circumstances considered harassment. Wars in general can be completely avoided by remaining in an NPC corporation.

Formally organizing and creating a player corporation has and should always involve risk. I personally do not think wars are a risk that needs to be taken away. NPC corps exist, there is nothing stopping anyone from organizing informally with in game chat channels and other out of game tools. The potential for a social space is there, you do not need to be in a player corp to cultivate it. Just look at groups like Bombers Bar and others that are able to organize all kinds of unconnected people incorporating them into a social space. (I think they killed a Titan a little while ago!)

For me, the biggest improvements would be revamping the UIs around the war mechanic, kind of how the UI for planetary interaction was revamped. Wars were clearly designed around the idea of group A fighting group B, each war is self-contained. I don’t see enemies of my enemy as an ally even when we are in a war with the same groups (Faction warfare has the militia mechanic). If you and I have been war dec’ed by the same group, I cannot formally offer you assistance. There are many other things around this idea that I can expand on, such as better documentation of involved game mechanics. In the interest of brevity, I will not go into more here.

I get that this is an area that has been neglected and over time, and in that void, gameplay surrounding empire wars evolved to something that has garnered a bad connotation. Maybe because of that CCP feels they need to make a change that is visible to try and reverse that negative feeling.

I think the point I am trying to make is that this specific change will limit how I play the game, and I don’t like it. I have been playing this game for a while and I like where I am at right now. With this and other recent changes, I have been impacted. It feels like I keep ending up on this constant losing end of changes when, from my perspective, the things being changed are not fixing problems.

(slphy vansyl) #302

i see there a nice opportunity to create a real hauler corp finally
so +1 for social
most of haulers are/have alt in npc corp, this change will help to create a bigger group to learn this face of the game
as said, ccp will work on this change during months so let’s try
in last time, if it’s too complicated or if it ruin the game,
RIOT! :slight_smile:

(Phil Mirk) #303

Thank you CCP !!! This will actually make me pay for Omega again after starting Eve 10 years ago because I can start a newb corp and recruit without getting bully war decked to death by trolls.


(Tzar Sinak) #304

Interestingly if the question is not asked they will never be ready to own a structure. Thanks for helping him.

(Zeus Maximo) #305

Good job high-sec station campers, this one is on you!

(Lord Xiskogen) #306

@CCP_Falcon, I don’t what has been said about a seemingly “overlooked” exploit this might bring, but I’m going to lay it down simple.

Some corporations thrive without structures in space, and would thrive even better if they wasn’t wardecced.

If a corporation, like marmite, pay a strong wh-corporation to set up a cheap structure, and transfer ownership to a hauling corporation or some other corporation without structure, they would now be legible for war dec.

Why is there not a permission option for receiving a anchored structure?

Now after let’s say this took place, and the hauling corporation is now in war, they now can’t transfer ownership to anyone else. And they can’t unanchor it, because the inhabitants of the “hard to get wh” bash it on a weekly basis, and they can’t get in, to bash it themselves.

Is the only option to leave corporation and make a new one?

(Dal Shooth) #307

Why is there not a permission option for receiving a anchored structure?


One additional related change is also coming in the December release, allowing corporations to toggle whether they wish to accept structure transfers or not. This option is a generally useful tool for corporations and is especially important alongside the war declaration changes as it prevents the tactic of transferring a structure to a corporation to make them war eligible against their wishes.
This option will be available in the corporation details page and can be changed freely by the CEO and directors with immediate effect.

When this option is set to reject structure transfers, any attempts to transfer an Upwell structure or customs office to the corporation will be declined automatically. Transfers of sovereignty structures within the corporations of an alliance are not affected by this setting.

This setting will default to the “reject structure transfers” state for all corporations on patch day.