Ftfy
War costs are fine as is currently, you wouldn’t want to keep the small guys to do wars would you?
As for them being unfair, welcome to EVE… lmao
Nothing is fair anywhere anyway so… 
You forgot about the inhabitants of that small village…
2 Likes
Again with this ‘think of the children’ ei?
There’s plenty of ways to avoid wardecs if you just take the time to think a little
2 Likes
Omfg grow a pair, puts guns on your ship and shoot those who dec you. How long will it take for you to stop being a pacsifist in a damn game and have some fun.
1 Like
You lost me with the opening statement, if war in Eve is fair then both sides have failed to properly prepare.
1 Like
Can’t say I expected this to go anywhere… time for a padlock imo.
@ISD_Buldath or some other ISD. Feel free to work your magic.
War Dec costs do not necessarily need to be that high, however there needs to be an additional requirement and goal besides just paying a fee in order to declare a war and there needs to be some repercussions for losing a war. The way things currently are leads to wars just being a means to attack and grief players. Instead wars should be used as a means to attack assets and this means needing to declare certain assets as the goal for a war, and owning at least one asset for your opponents to attack back.
If they manage to destroy their target they win and the war is over.
If they fail to destroy the target then they need to pay reparations and cannot war dec them again for a week.
If their opponent destroys their asset they lose, the war is over and they need to pay reparations.
If things were set up like this then by owning no space assets you would not be able to be war decked, and small corps would be relatively safe. This does lead to an issue of not being able to legitimately target troublesome small player groups, so in order to change and fix the war dec system, we would probably also need to fix the bounty system to find a good way to attack bounties in High-sec.
But high war costs make wars unusable for newer players and newer corps.
Would you join a player corp if it was immune to wardecs? Doesn’t it seem a better solution to somehow build a social corp or other social structure so that players can group up without wars? Even if you raise the cost of wars, or limit them somehow, you still could get wardecced and have your playing “slowed down”.
Ultimately though, this is what Eve is about and why there will be no perfect compromise. Eve is designed as a competitive game, where the other players are the primary content and we are all vulnerable to each other, yet there are people who feel entitled to do whatever they want as if this was a single player game. There is a real problem with getting newer players into social groups, and for upstart corps, but ultimately the point of the game is to compete with the other groups and players which means they will impact on your game.
Sure, you can just log in and do PvE or mine from the NPC corp. Even there, criminals can gank you, but if you want the benefits of being in a corp, especially something like structure ownership, you will always be made vulnerable to the other players. There just is no wiggle room here with the core idea of the game. And they may show up and impact your gaming experience.
The only solution I see is to uncouple the risks/benefits of being in a corp from being in a social group somehow. Wars, at least in some form will always be a part of highsec.
1 Like
Not even going to read the replies, , still will make a good blog on how the eve community is a bunch of tools
4 Likes
Just because an Idea does not fit your Vision of the game, Does not mean it does not Belong in the Ideas Discussion. No action has been taken in this thread.
3 Likes
I didn’t link ur name in bro
N if u reply every time he does, he carries on bragging ISD can close any thread he tells them to 
My statement was for all parties involved.
2 Likes
Stopped here.
One thing we need, the killmail that caused this whine. 
1 Like
Oh dear
Look little man, check the war decs against my corp, 8 in 4 weeks. I have died ONCE to the war deckers when a Marmite Proteus offered me a 1v1 against my Praxis, then had me jumped. Once in 3 months I have died to war deckers
Avoiding them IS NOT an issue for me
New players, who have VERY limited options, it is
2 Likes
There is clearly way more to know than just a single killmail! 
1 Like
@Evasive_Shadow_Assassin I’m gonna ask you a tough question… When you know players in high-sec do wars mainly to slap each other in the balls, why did you think you can just go onto the forum and have a reasonable discussion about it? 
So far what players want are two things. They want social corps, which let them group up and be an organization without participation in wars. The other thing that’s wanted is to have more intel when fighting wars.
One suggestion I’ve made was to remove the “fog of war” when wars are declared as mutual, meaning, both sides get to see on the map where the war targets are. This accelerates the fighting and wars get decided faster. It also means when a large alliance, who has no interest in high-sec warfare and becomes a target to a war declaration, can they choose to declare the war as mutual and can hunt the aggressor down quicker while everyone else in the alliance, who doesn’t take part in the fights, can still see where the enemies are and avoid them.
Since mutuality removes CONCORD costs, but has little added extra risk, would the removal of the “fog of war”, provide a meaningful risk.
I am not worried about the children, there is planned parenthood to take care of that problem.