My WarDec System Suggestion

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
,
1

I suggested this a while ago but my topic is closed due to “bumping” :slight_smile: thanks to several mercs. I am hoping that this time instead of hate messages and harrasing they can provide real feedback and can tell why they oppose this with a civilized manner. I think we need to discuss about wardec mechanics more especially after some mercs began using a technical hole in current system’s for their advantage to evade 2 weeks cooldown peace period.

War Mechanics

  • If a corporation wants to declare war on another corporation/alliance it should have one online Upwell Command service module online.
  • Corporation is asked what type of war campaign it wants to enable.
    • War of Attrition (Most ISK Destroyed)
    • Regional Conflict
    • Structure Warfare (Destroy Structure(s))
    • Total War
    • Mutual War
  • Each of those campaigns come with related objective,and LP rewards (& tactical victory points) when those objectives completed. Campaign type will not affect the cost of war declaration.
  • When the war is declared it is added to the war campaign counts (which is limited depending on the online Upwell Command service module), however if the war is mutual, although it still requires command service for declaration, it won’t affect the total count.
  • If an alliance wants to declare war, all the member corporations should meet the Upwell Command service requirements as well.
  • If a member corporation leaves the aggressor alliance, all wars & war campaigns will be inherited from the alliance and moved into their own structure with online Upwell Command service.

Upwell Command Service

Three new Upwell structure services will be available for declaring and sustaining war. Online Upwell Command service is required to declare a war and having war campaigns.

  • Upwell Command Office
    • Can be fitted into Medium, Large, and X-Large size Citadels
    • Can sustain 5 wars
    • Price : around 500million ISK
    • Fuel Consumption : 5 units/cycle
  • Upwell Command Center
    • Can be fitted into Large, and X-Large size Citadels
    • Can sustain 25 wars
    • Price : around 2.5 billion ISK
    • Fuel Consumption : 25 units/cycle
  • Upwell Command Headquarters
    • Can be fitted into X-Large size Citadels
    • Can sustain unlimited wars
    • Price : around 25 billion ISK
    • Fuel Consumption : 200 units/cycle

Only one Upwell Command service can fitted into one structure, and only one Upwell Command service can be online within the entire corporation at any given time.

Upwell Command services are available for Known Space only/ Empire Space only / Hi-Sec only.

Upwell Command service enables war declaration & war campaigns.

Upwell Command service enables war campaign default missions depending on the war campaign types (set by CONCORD)

Upwell Command service enables war campaign missions set by capsuleer corporations as well (such as; kill number of ships, kill number of industrial ships, kill ISK, destroy structure, etc). Corporation LP & ISK rewards may be given for each mission.

War Contracts

Objective and/or time based war contracts can be set by corporations. Objectives can be set for each contract and rewards can be cumulative.

  • Time frame for war
  • Objectives : Kill Structure(s), Kill Ships, Destroy ISK, Kill Industrial Ships

— These ones were listed in previous topic but since CCP made appropiate changes they were no longer needed —
** Also staging location for the war should be stated (the structure with the online Upwell Command service) and when war is declared this structure will be designated as staging location and defender corporation/alliance will be informed about the location (system) of the structure. [This happened so no longer needed]**
** When a corporation/alliance at war, all member capsuleers will have a War Timer (War Flag) all the time, until all wars are over. [This happened so no longer needed]*
** If a neutral capsuleer interferes the war by giving support to any warring faction, he/she will inherit that War Timer (War Flag) and all the wars entitled with that timer for 15 minutes, in addition to suspect timer, basically making them legal wartargets to all opponent faction capsuleers without CONCORD intervention and/or any suspect/criminal flag. This will prevent in-corp logistics to go suspect if they simply repairing their own corporation members when fighting against neutral logistics. [This was also sorted by CCP by giving criminal timer to OOC support, so no longer needed, but still I believe giving out WarFlag is much better then criminal timer]*
** If structure with the online Upwell Command service module is destroyed, then aggressor will have a limited time to move their operations to another base (4 hours-24 hours). Failure will lead all wars staging from that structure drop within 4-24 hours. [CCP decided on 2 weeks cool down period so no longer needed]*

2

For all these nerfs, what buffs do they get?

3

We want more small wars between small corps…this just adds a ton of bloat IMO to what is a very simple concept; lets blow their stuff up OR lets take their stuff.

Please no more barriers to entry…

1 Like
4

The wardec system even after redesign seems still buffed in favor of wardeccer corps, so I don’t think a new buff needed. You may think otherwise about me, but I really don’t have anything against wardeccer corps (I can accept that I may have a prejudice for PIRAT due to being an historical enemy in game :slight_smile: ) and nothing against PvP, I just think that we need a balanced mechanics so defending corps can have a chance.

5

So the proposal is just to nerf wardec groups and anyone else who wants to make use of the wardec mechanics as needs arise.

Yeah, we don’t need that at all.

Corps can completely opt out of wardecs all together. How much more chance do they need than complete immunity?

6

I am offering a scaled up system with a very low entry barrier for WarHQ for reasonable war counts, for more wars you need to pass a higher barrier though. With all respect, I think blanket wardeccing should need more barrier. I genuily believe this will bring more meaningfull conflict over systems and resources between small and medium scale corporations.

7

Can you please explain why you see this as a nerf? This system emphasize more meaningfull wars and content instead of one corporation blanket war emerging corps and others to hunt newbros around trade hubs. I really appreciate if you can point out my mistakes on the system and I mean it. This is why I re-create this thread so I can have a discussion so we can try to find optimal system.

8

It adds barriers that don’t currently exist, but offers no advantage in return to offset the impact of adding more barriers.

That’s a nerf.

9

The wardecs are already tied to structures, so the nerf already happened. The thing is that even though it was done with good intentions the system had a hole so wardeccers can exploit it to evade 2 weeks timer. Here I am offering a scaled up system to bring fair risk to aggresors and removing the hole by forcing only one HQ at a time.

10

One nerf already happened. This proposal is a set of more nerfs that arent needed, especially when you can’t even see a need to offset those nerfs with advantages for having to add all that cost and complexity.

11

Totally agree and in my thread that is what I sanction but simply with scaling fees. What I mean about “barrier” is just simply that (my goal) to get more wars going for smaller corps, adding features, structure hardware, skills, etc, just will discourage newbros. Conversely, more complexity favors larger more experienced corps. CCP made one good step forward with the current changes but then took a step to the left and had a nap.

IMO we also don’t want to focus structure “builds” for HQs but rather just have HQs as a mechanic.

The only “limits” IMO needed are to encourage corps to fight over resources while not enable the mega predatory groups.

12

Then please point out what kind of buff needed and what are my mistakes. I really appreciate if you can explain them so all can read and we collectively can bring a system that can thrive EVE Online and its players.

13

I am not against scaled up fees but previous system showed that it was not a solution. The problem was the risk factor not the ISK itself. Having a good structure infrastructure will be more meaningful for wars and that will not only provide good content but also make corporations to declare wars for better reasons (like system control, resource control, trade wars) instead of blanket wars.

The scaling up fees won’t really stop PIRAT to blanket war emerging hisec corps. ISK can be gained easily, but the risk factor is what they want to evade and that is why we need to balance this in my opinion. :slight_smile:

14

Not sure I know what you are referring to.

Meaningful wars is what is fought over, not what your HQ is. By focusing on HQ’s you’re just going to turn this into a turtle defense and when one side sees how strong a stations is, war is over. The battle needs to be outside of the stations in the belts, gates and space-ways as that’s what is is. The HQ is just a ticket to start the fighting in HS and should not be the focus of whether to start a war or not.

Yes it will. If you added a x5 multiplier to every consecutive Wardec, by the 6th wardec the fee is at 312B and by the 10th it’s 195T…So that will stop blanket wardecs.

Their solution will be to break-up into smaller cells so instead of being limited to 4 wardec (due to scaling fees), they will have 6 cells (for example and can have 24 wars going. BUT that also limits their fighters, regions, defenders, etc. Plus they need 6 times the infrastructure.

Hard to say that scaling wont have the desired effect. Yes ISK can be gained easily but a 5x liner growth is VERY hard to justify.

15

I’m no game designer, but here’s one example:

For a group like PIRAT, who maintain about 100 wars per week, in order to do that using Large structures, they would need a minimum of 4 large structures, each consuming 25 fuel blocks per hour, so 100 fuel blocks per hour to maintain their current level of activity (not including the cost of the Fortizars, etc.)

At a cost of ~ISK 19,000 per fuel block, that increases their cost every single week by ~300 million ISK. If they wanted to go with a Keepstar and unlimited wars, then their cost is increased by over 600 million ISK every single week.

That’s on top of the 100 million ISK per war they pay.

To offset that additional cost, wars should be extended in length as a base time, from 7 days, to something longer (not my original idea, but I like it). Pedro suggested 30 days in a different thread, but that doesn’t work nicely on the current week cycle of wars, so instead of 30 days, extend wars to be a base duration of 28 days, and prevents wars from being dropped by just not renewing a war if a HQ is at risk.

That gives everyone time to attack and kill all the structures they want to kill in the duration of a single war (instead of the 2 wardec fees it takes for high power citadels).

The ISK that they spend on fuel is then offset by lower overall wardec fees, allowing them to maintain the same activity, for the impost of having compulsory additional costs.

That’s just one example.

I don’t like the idea in the OP at all, but there at least needs to be some benefit available for the nerfs proposed. At the moment, it’s just nerf, nerf, nerf.

Aside from PIRAT, there are no other large wardec groups left. None. So your proposed changes only currently hurt everyone else significantly, to the point of making wardecs pointless to raise at all, if it isn’t an accepted mutual invitation.

16

They would not need 4 Fortizars, they would need a Keepstar. My proposal suggests that only one War HQ per corporation at any given time. So 5 wars require a medium citadel, 25 wars require a large citadel and unlimited wars require x-large citadel. So they would need 200 fuel blocks and hence 600 million every single week if they want unlimited war campaign slots.

I like the offset proposal though, really liked it. 14 days of war instead of 7 days should not only offset the fuel costs of a structure & War HQ upwell module but also ensures that defender can attack and destroy the structure in hisec without letting aggressors dropping war to prevent peacetime period.

Appreciated this. I am always open this kind of improvements and discussions.

Somehow you are convinced that I am against PvP or mercs so I am hoping that I can assure you that this is not the case.

17

So more than 600 million ISK per week in fuel for an unlimited module, compared to 320 million for 4 of the middle one?

You haven’t even run the numbers. I already included the cost of running the unlimited module in my post.

You should have more understanding of what you are proposing before proposing it.

200 fuel blocks per cycle. A cycle is 1 hour.

18

You are just far fetching a math error. After you said 14 weeks i mistakenly calculated 2002414 instead of 200247. I am not sure about your intentions anymore to be honest, making a fuss about a math error.

19

What?

I’m not far fetching anything. You asked for what advantages, I proposed one based on the numbers.
Anything else you think is going on is in your imagination.

I don’t want risk to continuously be removed from the game. You are proposing to do exactly that.

20

Opposite, I want RISK stay in the game. That structures and ISK invest for wars is the RISK. If you don’t want risk;
#1 Do NOT put up a structure so have peace,
#2 Do NOT declare war +100 corporations but PICK your fights.