There are different games for different player types. The market isn’t infinitely big. EVE is in a very good position I’m its niche and would witter away if it was even trying to leave it.
Maybe also read something about market segmentation for a change.
Yup but when your “player types” market segment become too small and unsustainable for business you just HAVE TO change market segment.
Simple as that 
That player segment is large enough to support EVE for over 15 years and there is zero reason to think that it is shrinking and the PCU numbers seem stable.
Hi, just for reference, wars are not a 6 year old mechanic. They were released with the game in 2003.
Don’t you bring your logic and facts in here, this is general discussion.
You are absolutely right. The current iteration of them is 6 years old where they massively shifted the balance towards the defender game mechanic wise.
So, do we think the war decs are broken? No, not broken, but there are many things that could be improved. My focus would be to protect the smaller corps, so they have time to organise and grow. Same as fishing. You don’t catch all the small fishes or in time you won’t have any fish left. Introduce social corps that can’t be war decced like NPC, but can function as a normal corp. Of course, with many restrictions (no structures, max number of players, etc). Raise the war dec fees for small corps to 150 and lower the cost of huge alliances. Link war dec fees to the average age of the players. The younger they are, the more expensive it becomes. Make the trade hub undocks invulnerable. This way people at least get a chance to warp out and people must hunt them.
Can’t disagree with any of that, I want of course a way for the defender to end the war, which I keep going on about, which is for me very important. Don’t you think that no matter what you do that the CEO of the aggressor has the decision on whether to keep you war decked or not is a bit silly?
We do a lot of contracts for industrial’s, who want their competition gone. Almost none of them have in corp structures, so no wars for them.
Yes, but don’t they drop to NPC corps and continue regardless currently so the only difference is that they stay in corp, which they would do in a social corp.
We routinely get paid to end wars by the defender as part of the surrender, sometimes we negotiate terms, sometimes not. Would be nice to have a more formalized system to offer that upfront as part of the declaration cause when folk go afk they tend to not check their mail :-)… or they put us on ignore.
If the aggressor wasn’t paying for the war, I would agree, cannot speak for Tora though, but declaring war for us is an investment.
As someone who had been on multiple sides of exactly this I can safely say it is surprising how many times this does not occur. Mostly down to what @Tora_Bushido also mentioned in the article, folk are not always aware they are at war and the UI doesn’t exactly do you favors there either.
I completely sympathize with this statement. I think that there’s room to maintain the freedom that we currently have now in that we can declare war on someone for whatever arbitrary reason we can come up with, but that some mechanic that gives the defender some options would be neat.
Like if my goal in declaring war on your group is to see you guys disband and disperse into another corp or group then that’s totally cool.
If I want to use war decs to push you out of an area that I want to plop structures down and jack the taxes up through the roof, then that’s cool too.
If a client hires me to inflict maximum damage and pain on a target by any means necessary (within the rules) then that’s cool as well.
Nothing wrong with your reasons to war dec people at all, my main issue is that there is nothing the defender can do to force the end of the war dec.
The defender also has an option to end the war. So that makes it even. Both parties have to pay for their option. Social corps would have restrictions, these don’t.
What’s a social Corp?
Explain, because I don’t see it, unless you mean the current surrender option, and I am looking for a direct result from fighting back.
As for social corps you can argue that at this point a corp without a structure in space is a social corp.
You will find out after the December patch.
A non-warfare corporation.
Some players don’t want to be sitting in an NPC corp, but they want their own corporation, yet they don’t want to participate in the corporate warfare of high-sec.
Now these players could just remain in NPC corps and create a private chat to mimic a corp chat, but this I assume is seen as cumbersome, while a corporation has shared hangars and wallets.
So the idea is to introduce social corporations, where players can team up, but are not exposed to the warfare aka wardecs.
It could have been implemented as a simple switch in the GUI to corporations. The coming change introduces social corps in the form of corporations, who don’t hold structures in space. This will make any corp without a structure into a social corp, regardless if they want to be one or not. It’s a bit of a missed chance, but might get addressed with further changes later on (which I honestly doubt knowing CCP).
What if I want my corp to be able to be wardeced but I don’t want to have a structure?
It will be a sacrifice the existing corporations have to make I suppose. But it closes a door which could have been left open and which would have benefitted the corporate warfare.
Well, we’ll really have to wait and see. If CCP wants the corporate warfare to be set up solely around structures then they’ll have to close all and any loopholes where corporations without one could enter into the conflicts.
They are cheap, currently you have one in WH space don’t you? If not then you must be living out of an Orca…
And don’t forget that my suggested way to approach this was to allow five war decs in total without a structure on the aggressor side, so asking this of me is a bit moot.
Though I would suggest that people can ally without a structure, because we want to see people putting their toe in the water.
The starting systems are going to be perma-camped and you die the moment you undock. You are going to have 0 player retention the moment you do it as you can’t do anything until you join a corp or make a new one. If you prevent war in the starting system, everyone is just going to die in the next system - still completely useless.
The second problem is that there is absolutely no sane reason to have MORE safety in the 1 man corp (one you can make within minutes of starting the game and costs 0 ISK) than in the corp where newborn players start.
Propose fixes to the upper two issues and I am in favor of the idea - till then it is useless and would break far more than solve.
A far better solution - it would be trivial to move every player from their NPC corp to the FW corp at the age of 1 month. This would work without outright killing the new players. But the main problem here is that no older player would remain in the noobcorp, so the new players will be left on their own.