Wardec cost should be adjusted for inflation

Change my mind.


Show us your loss mail.

1 Like

I can tell this will be a good thread. :popcorn:

I remember back then wardec cost was higher for larger corps who had many members my first CEO would ask us to create more characters to hike the cost.


Why stop there? What’s next? Skillbook prices go up? CONCORD bribes for Tag turn in increase? Mission payouts decrease? Bounties on Rats decrease? Sales and SCC taxes go up? Overseer effect value goes down? Blue loot value goes down? Warclone blank prices go down?

All of these ideas seem terrible and can be justified „because inflation“.

1 Like

Lets keep doing all we can do to punish anyone wanting to pvp so that the only people left are the loud minority or farming carebears. Full speed ahead CCP.

Join a wardec-immune corp.

I see what caused this, we just dec’d DammFam, and this thread pops up here, a different one on Reddit about GRRRR war deccers as well. Nice nice, should be a fun little war.

War dec cost should be inverted first and foremost. You should pay 500M to declare war against a small corp and barely anything to declare war against a big corp/alliance.

Plus, war dec immunity should be capped at at most 1000 characters in a corp/alliance. If you have more than 1000 character, it is reasonable to expect that you can defend yourself against wars. There is no reason at all why an alliance with 24,000 or 8,700 characters should be war dec immune.


Wardec cost should be proportional to wardeccer wealth and power. Estabilished, power-hungry corp / alliance using expensive ships blinged to absurd want to stomp that 10 man corp with just-anchored Athanor in high-sec? Sure, why not. For about 1 bilion isk, how about that? Suddely that Athanor core might be not worth wardeccing some causal small corp who just want to grow up a little…

One can dream, eh.

moved to Player Features & Ideas - EVE Online Forums

And how do you propose you establish “wealth and power” as a metric? I can basically guarantee that your system will be gamed. If your “causal small corp” doesn’t have the capacity to defend a structure, don’t put one up. At least nowadays you can be in a corp with no structures and not be decced.

I am not related to any reddit post.

Also this is not the place to discuss broken Wardec mechanics, but the fact that Wardec costs have been the same for years now and are getting cheaper effectively.

Just think it through… if EVE would live for 100 more years at one point wardec costs would stay the same they would become basically free.
If you have free Wardecs, would that break anything?

I think it’s a great discussion point on what CCP wants wardecs to be and how much “Highsec safety” is valued. Right now the value of safety is getting lower and lower and this is a concerning fact for some people who really want a safe environment.

This is a sandbox. There are no safe environments in EVE Online and there shouldn’t be, that’s your mistake.

I disagree. There must be space with limited engagement rules. I doubt all of New Eden being Nullsec would benefit the game. Else it probably would be only Nullsec.
There are different players with different playstyles.

It’s the same reason starcraft has a campaign or “Sven CO-OP” exists. Some people just don’t like pvp. But those players are still valueable to the game in my opinion.

For anyone who has played the game for a long period of time, this is kind of funny to hear.

High sec safety is at an all time high. There used to be outlaws rampant in every other system. Now they can’t even dock and have to piss themselves playing because they are playing against the FacPo with their physical limits. Mining holds weren’t a thing and jetcan flipping the norm in a bunch of high sec systems with mining sessions continually interrupted. People would Safari in corps because of no friendly fire controls too. Concord used to be tankable. Gate and station guns weren’t a thing. All the above was changed because of constant whining about „never safe enough“.

Is that what you really want to build upon? The whole point of having laws is to have both law abiders AND law breakers. Most people simply complain about law breakers. You’re even wanting to punish the law abiders here! Wardecs are legal law abiding conflicts.

Compared to then, if you can’t figure out how to be safe in high sec now you probably want a different game entirely.


That’s true and I doubt a inflation adjusted wardec price will not change anything about this so I don’t see a problem with that. Instead of having 60 active wars blackflag only having like 40 for the same ISK doesn’t look like a game breaking problem. They would in fact still have 60 and wouldn’t care about spending a little bit more of ISK in my opinion.

I just think it’s fair to ask for the price to be adjusted with more and more ISK being available it seems only fair.

How is it remotely fair?

Newbies and new groups that want to build a war dec corp now have to spend more time and resources to unlock the same gameplay, due to the egregious penalty of simply joining the game late.

If that’s not elitist gatekeeping IDK what is.

I think it is much more a barrier to entry for smaller pirate groups to need and maintain a war HQ.

It’s not remotely comparable because that cost gives them a fully fit structure they get to defend, live out of, and put towards the economy. They get a tangible good out of the deal and can resell it to recoup costs, and it is a one time investment that is amortized over the lifetime of the structure and all follow on war decs.

Adjusting the cost to inflation is asking them to pay more ISK to nobody due to no fault of their own: the other players are too busy crabbing or a trillionaire happens to log in / resub that month.