High Sec War Dec suggested fixes

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

I’ve spent most of my time in low sec. However, I often need to afk for a week, month, or even more. When I come back the corporation has moved homes, changed doctrines, and done god knows what else. I basically had to reset my accounts every time I came back from work to play. It was a huge burden and often caused me to not log in knowing I still needed to logistics my account over some where else.

I decided to start war deccing corps in high sec as a racketeering operation. It’s just me and my brother that play together generally and we don’t plan on recruiting as we cannot fulfill duties as leadership being gone as often as we are.

The new changes to wardecs will completely destroy our playstyle and leave us with nothing. We don’t have the fleet size to take a structure even if it’s only gunned by one man let alone defend our own. We plan on anchoring a structure far flung into the distance some where to avoid this new mechanic but it just goes to show how ineffective it is.

The new mechanics also place GREAT protection on structure-less organizations. We’ve been attempting to hold control of a high sec ice belt, it is already impossible due to NPC corporations, but now a corporation could just unanchor and mine the belt freely with no risk associated.

The new system should achieve the following goals.

  1. Remove the benefits of being in an NPC corp
  2. Increase the difficulty of just wardeccing all of highsec for trade hub campers
  3. Create win conditions that can be met to end war
  4. Disallow assistance from non-participants.

.

  1. Remove the benefits of being in an NPC corp:
    Those who leave corporation during a wardec should remain flagged for the duration of the war. The current mechanics greatly encourage players to leave corp. This destroys corporations camaraderie and isn’t fun for any one.

Allow wardecs against single players in NPC corps. This would remove any benefit of remaining in an NPC corp at all.

There is this weird highsec cultist idealism that new players in NPC corps should be protected. I don’t particularly agree with this, but I don’t agree with griefing new players until they quit either. I would be okay with some sort of wardec protection for a period of time on new accounts. (unless forfeited in a menu somewhere)

  1. Increase the difficulty of just wardeccing all of highsec for trade hub campers:
    Currently war dec cost scales based on the amount of pilots in the corporation / alliance that you are war deccing. The cost is generally negligible and groups like pirat pay this cost without ever earning that isk back in war.

Change this mechanic to change war dec costs based on how many concurrent wars you have declared. First war is 100 million isk. This price doubles for each war you declare after this and the new price becomes the weekly price for all declared wars. War 2 is 200 million isk to declare and now both war 1 and war 2 cost a weekly fee of 200 million isk for a 400 million is total per week. War 3 is 400 million isk and now war 1 and war 2 also cost 400 million isk for a total of 1.2 billion isk weekly fee.

This would completely remove the current meta of just machine gun warring on everyone in the hopes of finding a kill in Jita.

  1. Create win conditions that can be met to end war:
    This is by far the most difficult. I can only imagine the difficulty in programming a thousand win conditions such as stay out of this ice belt or I get a free wardec on you for a week.

However, win conditions naturally exist for any group not looking for easy jita kills. “Stay out of my Ice belt.”

The CSM notes talk about a “propaganda structure” to place on enemy structures. This isn’t good enough to keep my playing with war decs. I need to fly kitey shield fits that have the power to disengage as I only have 2 maybe 3 pilots. With a system like that the larger groups that I target can place a 10 man armor fleet on the structure and there is really nothing I can do to continue the war. Not because they were better or smarter, simply because the mechanic would change to a system I couldn’t control.

Maybe an increasing cost to continuing the war would be a fix here. Complete my objective or get too expensive could be a fix. But it needs more thought.

  1. Disallow assistance from non-participants.
    There is no reason non participant alts should even be a factor. Flag em criminal. The incursion communities currently don’t accept war decced pilots any way and this change shouldn’t affect communities like that. Their policy is not to help you if you get attacked, with safeties set green - meaning they can’t assist even if they tried.
2

Basically you want people to not play eve anymore.

“You HAVE TO let me kill you”.

They will just stop playing rather than allow you to satisfy your little ego.
That exactly is the opposite of what CCP said they want to do.

They would just drop corp and make a new one. Think before you post.

It is not your ice belt. If you want YOUR ice belt, you go in null sec and conquer a system. That’s what NS if for.

1 Like
3

I meant concurrent wars, I’ll edit the main post to reflect this idea better.

We’ll just need to agree to disagree here, why don’t we fight a war over it?

4

No, you just need to understand that this IS what sov nullsec is for.
If you want to own your little space, you go in NS. Complaining that you can’t do that in HS is just a proof that you don’t understand the game.

1 Like
5

Concord owns anything in hisec. if you want your own ice, go to null. Even if you have an athanor at a moon in hisec, its not “your moon” its concords.

6

Increasing the cost is not a solution. That would make it way too easy for huge null sec blobs to become immune to long wars.

Win conditions like destroying a structure to end a war are also completely wrong because they allow huge null sec blobs to also become a lot less affected by wars. That is unacceptable.

7

You are aware that the changes won’t force you to attack the structures, the target and you just have to have one, anywhere?

You drop a structure of your own, any structure anywhere, and you can keep on deccing people who have any structure, anywhere. You target selection will be a tad smaller but there’s so many people with structures around that you will find somene to shoot at among them.

As you describe it, your playstyle is pretty much unaffected by these changes.

8

Null sec blocs haven’t war decced each other in years. They literally can’t be immune to wars as they live in space where there is no punishment for shooting each other.

You are correct, in it’s current iteration I’m largely unaffected. One of the discussions in the CSM notes talks about having to anchor a propaganda structure on top of enemy structures to declare and maintain war. If that were to come to fruition, there is no way i’d be able to maintain a dec as i’ll never have the manpower to keep it on the field.

Unrelated to me specifically, I simply don’t think high sec groups should be immune to non-gank pvp.

9

No one cares about that. I care about PIRAT, Marmite and others can keep CONDI, PL, HORDE; TEST etc. under permanent war dec. It must actually become cheaper and easier for more groups than the most wealthy war decers to permanently war dec these huge groups, not more expensive.

10

Ah, I see what you mean. Honestly I think that they should be afforded the same protection as every one else in highsec and the nullsec blocs deserve as much as any one else a win condition.

11

They have a win condition: It’s called The Blob.

Null sec blocks do not need more protection in high sec, they need less. They need to be at risk somewhere if they aren’t in null sec after all.

12

IMO the issue is that the war cost depends on the players in the attacked corporation.
It should depend on the players in the attacking corporation, in a linear way eg 20M/attacker.
And to prevent them from abusing join/leave, wardeccing a corp/ally should prevent your from recruiting anyone for the duration of the wardec.

13

Well i need to say i am with Jehle on the disagrement part. please both drop a structure now and engage in war … and it doesent matter if you think its not his belt cause you are in high sec matter of fact its his if he can defend it. and thatw what wardecs are supposed to be used for oh we disagre so we gone settel that through trial by combat

2 Likes
14

yes it matters.

15

well or he just resorts to ganking you silly in his belt is that more to your liking ?

2 Likes
16

it’s still wrong, it’s not his belt, again.

17

you dont understand what i want to tell you right ? you can both say its his or not his on the end of day its always that person that can enforce his statment going out as victoryous.

So again its his belt if he can keep you out of it. and thats what the wardec mechanic is supposed to be used for i neeeever said i agree with his fix proposal cause well that is ehm totaly throwing balace out the window.

2 Likes
18

even if you kill him, you don’t acquire any right ingame over it.

space control is done in NS, not in HS. Just because you killed a noobship does not mean you control a system …

No, that’s what NS is supposed to.
This proposal defeats the difference between HS and NS

The people you absolutely want to kil, they play because they can afford to not be wardecced all over and over again. Otherwise they would go to null.
Your proposal is simply “remove HS”

19

then please tell me what the wardec mechanic is supposed to be used for instead if its not to settel quarels like that?

edit: as said i dotn agree on the proposal i just agree on the part that you should see the thing more realistic

20

just read at the previous patch notes and you’ll have a hint from the devs.

hint because you seem dense : focus on structure

Again, wardecs is not supposed to help you remove everybody from one system . If you want that, go in null.