Tiered War costs and allied conditions proposal

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

Tiered costs for how many war declarations you make within a given time (month, quarter, year) that works or scales somewhat like jump fatigue.

When an entity which has declared war invites an ally or allies to join their war, they, each, must incur some kind of aggression or commit to a hostile act against a pilot or asset of the enemy within the week, or war is declared null and closed, regardless if they wish to extend/continue the war. A new war must be declared again at a higher tiered respective to appropriate tier which they now fall under. No such prerequisite for unsupported wars.

A defender that extends invitation to an ally or allies. Ally is given the option to take the tier penalty for joining the war or leaving it to the original party that incurred the wardec.

2

What keeps me from having alt-corporations declaring war and me switching between these corporations?

1 Like
3

The condition that your alt corps must commit to hostile activities also or suffer the loss of the wardec and a substantially higher dec cost for the renewal or next war.

The costs should scale by a high factor each time up to a maximum amount, that should encourage better target selection and discourage blanket wardecs.

4

We really need a global wardec thread where all this nonsense can be dumped into.

1 Like
5

Only the defender can invite allies to join a war. If the friend of an aggressor wants to join a war, they have to declare their own war.

But even if the aggressor could invite allies to join, what would prevent the ally from just declaring a war of their own and avoiding this tiered structure you created?

And the cost to have allies join the defender is already tiered. At least the first ally is free, and subsequent allies cost something (25M ISK? maybe). Ok, I’m not sure if it is tiered or just each ally beyond the first is the same price, but still the basic idea is in the game already.

And as for cost scaling or war fatigue, as Sol says, I don’t see how you get around aggressors hopping from corp to corp to just evade the increasing costs.

I think we need a fix for corp-hopping before we even try to address war cost scaling or a cap on war number.

1 Like
6

I agree that there should be more costs associated with corp creation. Creating an alliance is 1b and you have annual billing. Corps should be the same.

I don’t understand your meaning on the defensive corp declaring war.

7

I’m not sure I understand your statement there, but the ability to invite allies to a war is something only the defender has. If you are the one declaring war, you cannot invite another group to join you. The defender can invite another group to join the war as an ally, but they can only do so for one group for free. If they invite a second group, it costs ISK.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your proposal to have tiered costs based on allies joining the war, but it already exists for the defender, and the aggressor doesn’t have the ability at all right now to invite allies so I don’t know how you would increase war costs based on how many allies the attacker has. And my point was that even if you tried to increase costs for allies joining the attack, they could just circumvent those costs by declaring their own war.

8

This.

I am surprised it didn’t get a sticky like AFK Cloaking a long time ago…

1 Like
9

Yes, my mistake. I’ve been in some wars and hadn’t realized that each of the alliances and corporations declared war independently. Being in the militia, you don’t see wars usually as an aggressor. It usually only happens during a civil war, and the war never ends with the squids.

I mean I would like the initial fees for defenders to increase as well over time, where the first alloy isn’t free either, but affected by tier over time as well in its own bracket. The multiplier being singular, but the costs for an ally as a defender, and the costs of declaring war being different.

10

What is the problem you are trying to solve?

11

Large blanket wardecs for high sec lane camping mostly. Weak gameplay like neutral logistics in highsec.

12

So it is just another nerf wardecs thread by high sec bears that don’t want to PvP but insist on playing a PvP game.

Got it, thanks for the clarity.

So I vote -1.

13

I’m just going to throw this out there but if you don’t know the current wardec mechanics how in Bobs name do you plan on fixing them

14

I don’t really consider myself a highsec bear, but ok.

Wars don’t bother me where I live. They’re just not necessary except to avoid sentry guns maybe.

I can, however, speak of a time when I was, and I can tell you I lost some good friends I found in the first few weeks here. Most of which was due to the lack of experience and bad leadership of the defending corporation(s). Refusing to defend your corpmates or ordering them to stand down from fights or even playing the game, is not a good thing. Cheap Wardecs bring this out, but so does the low cost of setting up a corp and maintaining it.

I’m just pushing an idea out on their cost, which can make wardeccing the right group something that is done after a little chin scratching, rather than with impunity, as it is now. Tiered costs by frequency of war declarations will do that, while avoiding any any inconveniences to mercenary groups with the exceptions I added. Which also act against defenders who are often wardeced, but rely on the same outfits for protection (indie alt corps), eventually griefing them into submission or much higher costs to have allies.

I appreciate the corrections. They don’t discourage me from learning. I wouldn’t offer ideas if it weren’t for the fact that even war vets seem to have nothing better to add atm, and it is that which is the sad part of all this, imo.

15

I might be wrong but isn’t there a features and ideas thread somewhere that ‘war vets’ posted in already. Posting bear posts like this in C&P is basically asking to be trolled.

16

Until the trolling unravels the sense of this proposed idea and criticism identifies how in so many ways, or one remarkable one, it is unsound or why it would fail, why be bothered by it? Save your criticism for the idea, and not for what kind of pilot you think I am.

If there was no ally system to aggressors, maybe one can be installed which can make this tiered system work and redirect the bump in gradation costs back to the original transgressor.

If you can point to an official site by CCP where one can learn the mechanics of the game, I would be glad to read it. Before criticizing me, you should understand that much of the confusion surrounding this game is due to the lack of official or in-game information or documentation for understanding this game without having to read every Dev Blog release backwards.

::edit:: nm, I found there is a large amount of information here. https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004152745-Wars and here https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/categories/200527101-Gameplay-Features
But there is a very limited amount of information here, tbh. Just look at the page you get for factional warfare. Pretty sad.
https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/203209072-Factional-Warfare

17

Most of us go learn them through trial and error.
Alright if you insist

  1. Nobody anywhere likes jump fatigue

  2. There is no assist for aggressors

  3. If there was it would be identical to defender’s resist or else nobody would use it

  4. Your proposal encourages a defender to hide or log off for a week as the reward is greater???

  5. Corp rolling would avoid the higher costs. Or worse still using alt corp’s to declare on one’s own corp would increase the cost. This got scrapped years ago cause it was terrible

  6. Finally what teir penalty for defender ally? Your post assumes we know wth you were talking about before you posted it. Go back and re write it to include coherent thought. Then go over it again and think about each point with out rose tinted glasses. Finally if you get to the end and go this should make things safer or this should limit player interaction delete it and start again

18

Topic moved to Player Features and Ideas Discussion forum.

~Buldath

1 Like
19

You’ve identified the real issue here. But your solution doesn’t do anything to it.

If anything, cheap wardecs (like they used to be), prevent terrible corps from surviving long enough to attract players (like they used to do).

Blanket decs happen because hunting players was shafted by the watch list changes. Bring back the ability to intelligently track players and blanket decs won’t be so necessary.

20

Jump fatigue served its purpose and scaled back force projection from across the map, from any point of the universe. Small gang capital escalation is now at the height of where it has historically been, and it has been really great. I often see even solo roaming caps and it is sub caps which respond to them, not huge PL blobs of 15 supers. People like Shadow Cartel were hit pretty hard by these changes, but I suspect they will be back in their hot dropping seats like before with the coming relaxation of jump fatigue.

I would like there to be so that this system might work for mercs.

The allied system has to be different for the aggressors than for the defenders. You always want to give the defenders the cheaper option.

That is only if the aggressor chooses to have an ally, at which point an act of aggression is required from each party to maintain this war. That should keep wars declared by corps with non-combat alts for war deccing at a minimum and make aggressors consider carefully who their allies will be – or if they will take any to begin with.

You obviously can’t envision what I had in mind, so let me give you an example of what I mean by having it ‘like’ jump fatigue.

What if we give each corporation a set of 6 points, 1 of each is worth a war dec on a corporation. The cost of a war on an alliance costing 2 points. Every quarter (3 months) you are reimbursed half of your remaining points. Every 6 months you get 1 free additional point. Every anniversary year you get 3 free additional points. You are allowed to have a maximum of 6 points at any given time.

If you declare war on a corporation, you lose a point. If you allow aggressors to add an ally, the ally is given the choice to use their own points, or to leave the point cost to the original inviting party.

Let’s say a war with a corporation is reduced to 30 million at the first bracket or first point spent. You remove the extra costs for how many corp members there are in a corp, but leave that additional cost for alliance wars. So, a flat 30mil on the 1st point. On the 2nd point spent, you are now in a new bracket and the cost is multiplied by 3x (made up number) and it continues on up with the potential to reach a cap of 30x on the 10th point.

If you are a defending party and you wish to invite a merc AND a friend corp, you have the option of spending your own points on behalf of those invited, on the condition that you also pay the extra costs associated with their involvement. In this way, a defending side might also run out of points due to unreliable defenders who back out or the sheer number or allies recruited who refuse to spend their own points.

Does it need to have an in-game reason for the point system? Just say the Yulai Convention has been overwhelmed with war declarations and has now limited the amount of wars a capsuleer can engage in to reduce the sheer volume of paperwork.

I feel like this is a better system that the one we have now. Watchlist and alt corps are all separate problems, imo, which need their own fixing.

The watchlist could be given some kind of pep up with a better bounty system in being able to have an agency tab for players with bounties currently online, with a search option for amount, character name, corporation, region or alliance. Then maybe you can place bounties on your intended targets beforehand and, in conjunction with locator agents, find the pilots you’re looking for WHILE knowing they are online.

The second problem with alt corps has everything to do with the ease and low cost of creating a corporation. In my opinion it should be half the cost of establishing an alliance and there should also be an annual cost by member. I would suggest having some kind of discount available that might reduce this cost for every system/station in null sec that is under your sovereignty by 10%. This might encourage larger groups to feed into null.

I would hope this also reduces the amount of non-active players corporations keep in their roster and also reduce the amount of garbage corporations that are created. If you cannot afford your corp bills or don’t know how to make Isk in Eve, then you shouldn’t make other pilots share in your desperate situation.