The Argument for War Declaration Changes

Hey Eve Community, I felt like perhaps this is worthy of it’s own thread. ISD’s if this needs merging from it’s own thread I’m happy, but I hoped I could have my own thread due to the large number of arguments I wanted to put in here.

Again, I’d love constructive rebuttals to my arguments.

Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules to take a quick read, I appreciate it immensely.

You have all heard of the war declaration changes where non-structure holding corporations would become ‘immune’ to war declaration, and I think I’d love to compile a few arguments for the current proposed change if that’s okay.


  • If one wanted danger, nearly nine tenths of eve online provides that. The community are simply suggesting that the small green island at the centre of a vast ocean of pure lawless space could be a place where players who have to pay taxes on every structure they use (due to not having their own), could be subject to slightly less danger than those who don’t.

Our current dangers include:

  • Null Security (0.0) space, encompassing the vast majority of eve.
  • J Space (Wormhole Space) where danger is at such a level that even the local channel doesn’t exist.
  • Low Security Space. Where the gate camp reigns supreme and the pirates roam free, argued by some as -the- most dangerous area of eve online.
  • Abyssal Space, where environmental conditions have you killed in twenty minutes for not being good enough with no escape.

Why Make the Changes?

This could be in order to facilitate players (aimed at mostly newer) who wish to get into the game or build their social presence in eve online before losing it horribly to the first low-security gate camp they encounter when they decide to leave the cuddly green bubble of high sec. (Rancer inhabitants I’m looking at you).

In a new game, one could argue heavily that those initial ‘social’ structures such as corporations or guilds weigh heavily on whether a player initially stays in the game before they become hooked on the mechanics and content of eve online.

New players don’t care about whether you take sovereignty by deploying a POS or whether you activate a module; they care about whether they can play with all their friends, and about building their own home, even if that’s only chat windows and a ‘badge’ or ‘ticker’.

They are in danger of leaving if you disrupt this process too early by forcing them to stay docked up. They are not good enough to challenge you yet, and will statistically die without yet having been inside our virtual little world long enough to understand why they are dying and what they are doing wrong.

(Once established of course, they get killed in HED-GP when wandering around, and that’s their fault).

We are also talking slightly here, suicide ganks are still an incredibly common way to get podded in high security and I wonder if you all agree that high security is quite unsafe anyway due to factors such as alternate character armies and neutral healing techniques.

Thank you for hearing my two cents, enjoy your day.


It’s only as unsafe as you allow it to be, with a little knowledge and some common sense it’s ridiculously easy to all but immune to 99.99% of all the shenanigans that people get up to, including wardecs.


Wardeccers and gankers prey on stupidity and lack of knowledge, or both. You want to learn how ty fly? Spend a month in Curse with an indus, come back and facepalm at killmails.

I went ganking a few times with Code, know thy enemy and all that. They were quite happy to welcome a bear such as myself and show me the ropes; learnt a fair bit and made some new friends, in low places.


Thats how it should be. Show someone how to fight and they will want to fight.

Here is a question for you: why were wardecs ok for 15 years and now it’s not?

1 Like

lol not quite.

I don’t do PvP, at least not of the explodey kind. I use what I learnt to try and ensure that it only happens to other people.

In a game of cat and mouse there is no shame in learning to be a better mouse.


I do not want to learn to fly, have my own plans. I just do not want ANY INTERACTION with old toxic Eve players, I respect them but I do not want to have anything with them.


It’s an MMO, dude, not a single-player game. You may not want to interact with them, but you cannot avoid being interacted with unless you quit the game.

It’s as retarded as perhaps wanting to post a comment and not have anyone reply to it, yet better make it a sticky, too, but don’t let anyone say anything about it.

You’ve got to learn to interact with others. It’s the only way forward. We’re 7 billion people on this planet, we’re only getting more and we’re more connected than ever, too. Who other than the edgelord wants to stay out of it?!


Thank you for your contribution, this question is a good one.

Crowd Control Productions have indicated recently at a public event that 50% of all war declarations were being taken on by five major corporations.

One of the presentation slides then indicated that after wars had reached their conclusion, those players who had left due to being docked up were much less likely to return to a reasonable level of activity and consequently quit the game in fairly reasonable numbers.

It then transpired that on average (I picked this up from a forum thread, I apologise for the lack of evidence here) 105 kills were obtained for a single loss in each of these wars. I think at this point CCP realised something had to change.

I think the community believes this is a band-aid solution to the problem, now that the organisation has hard evidence that high security wars are actively causing new players to leave.

There are clearly better solutions, and CCP has indicated that they will build a better solution (soon).

1 Like

And I want to play with my friends not with you “dude”. Go to your part of space, I and my frieds will go to our part.


I need to agree. If someone gets pinned in a station to the point where only their pod remains and they get podded every time they try to exit the station its just not fun any more. Fun for one person is not fun for someone else. A game that can fulfill more then one role is a game that has a better chance of survival then a game offering only one means of play. Game styles come and go as fads but all games have a life span timer that ticks down. Its up to not only the maker of the game but the people who play to add time to that timer by any means. If the majority of the game agrees to an act that would reduce that timer down to near nothing it falls on the makers of the game to decide to either let the game go and move on or do something to fix that issue.


You don’t have a part, unless a wormhole has opened up to New Entitlement, a hitherto unknown mirror dimension designed by dark Korean scientists to cater specifically for the terminally needy and milk them for cash.




I will have, new Korean owner will sell me my part of New Eden and I’ll sit in it and smile to you. :blush:


So why don’t you answer it? I only see you parroting CCP and watching the EVE Vegas Show was only disturbing.

Fact is the player numbers are stable and not dropping. One might even say they are climbing again. We then have wardecs for as long as I can remember, and we’ve had fights with worse kill ratios, too.

Fact is wardec corporations have used war to make business in EVE and to recruit players into their ranks, and quite successfully, too.

Why was this not shown as a success of wardecs and how it creates strong corporations within EVE?

Are they really climbing or are people returning to the game that have not played in a long time to find more hostility and malice then use to exist. These people then stay for a bit trying to sink or swim then leave again before the numbers are updated to reflect them leaving. I could swear years ago that there was more then 30k players playing this game without probably a third of that being alts of major corps alone. Numbers rising will also reflect alt accounts. So if someone starts with 1 account and supports 4 others thats not really numbers rising thats possibly one person up to the same shenanigans but on 5 accounts.

1 Like

You are partially correct, however, there comes a point for many (if not most) players, where the only ways to progress is to become more vulnreable to risks or log off and quit the game.

Second and far more important, is that as you stated with knowledge and a bit of common sense its easy to avoid the risks to get to the point where you can properly judge any given situation and make a choice if taking that risk is worth it or not. However, we are talking about new players here that do not have that knowledge and in many cases have not had the time yet to develop that common sense, therefore are completely unable to avoid or mitigate the risks or their consequences. Just thought I’d point that out.


Long post; good story:

Joe had been running his boss’s restaurant for 15 years, through bad times and good. It had recently been sold by the old owner to a new group of younger businessmen and they had foisted a CPA (accountant) on him to help advise future business decisions. The two have just sat down together for the first time.

“Well, I’m sure the numbers are looking good, Mr. Expert Accountant, right?”
“Well,sir, they actually don’t look all that great.”
“WTF?! I see that we are showing a profit and our daily customers are steady.”
“Well, sir, our profit ratio is steadily falling and that customer count is an illusion”
“You accusing us that we can’t count? Besides, a profit is a profit; it beats a loss”
“Remember those coupons that offered free meals? They have been popular”
“I know, that idea was mine.”
“Those people are both inflating your customer account and aren’t bringing money in.”
“Ok, then what’s the problem? Is the food bad? Are the surroundings bad?”
“Well, we have a few complaints about both, but nothing serious”
“Well, spit it out man, what’s the problem!?”
“Smokers?! What’s wrong with smoking. I smoke,you smoke, we have always smoked in this resturant!”
“People are trying our resturant and a large number of them aren’t returning because they don’t like smoking. Times and culture change,sir.”
“Are you saying all the potential new customers are complaining about the smoking?”
“No sir, but a significant amount of people are complaining.”
“I refuse to make our resturant a non smoking resturant!!”
“They aren’t asking for that sir, just an area away from the smoke would work.”
“Well, we could put the smokers in that new dining area with the venting…”
“Won’t solve the problem completely,sir.”
“Why in the hell not? The smokers can smoke, the adamant nonsmokers can have their area, and people who don’t care can be seated in either. That’s a win/win.”
“Sir, there is another group we haven’t yet addressd: the militant smokers.”
“WTF are militant smokers?!!!”
“They are the smokers that demand that not only that they should smoke wherever they want, but that everyone should be bothered by their smoke. They actually demand that other people suffer from their smoke because the militant smokers derive pleasure from that.”
“Everyone else agrees with you,sir.”
“So the normal smokers in their area would be happy?”
“The nonsmokers would be happy in their non smoking areas?”
“Yes, sir!”
“And those that don’t care either way would be happy with their options?”
“Absolutely, sir!”
“So, only those smokers who insist not only that they can smoke anywhere they want, but that it must also bother other people for them to enjoy their experience in our resturant would be upset?!”
“Simplified? Yes,sir!”
“Well, screw those militant smokers then. We’re running a business here.”

Sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it?


No, it isn’t.