You seem a bit bored.
That is a long winded post that mentions NPC corps as a way to escape war decs but you fail to notice that without a structure in space you canât be war decced, my proposal was to enable a limited number of war decs against more than just structure holders.
Do I?
It is what i used to do to corps i didnt like mining in my home system,
I would start ganking themâŚ
If they got uppity and refused to leaveâŚi would drop a dec on themâŚ
and continue to gank themâŚ
the gank corp would be docked up in the npc stationâŚwhilst the wardec corp would be cloaked patrolling the beltsâŚwhile the resource collection corp would be out mining.
it was a good strategy until the structure req started.
hmph, ok i get what your on aboutâŚ
I prefer a K.I.S.S. method, your way(ccp nullsec way) is just overly complicated, more so for a place like HS.
2 Likes
Absolutely.
Tbh CCP should first define what they actually want the wardec-system to be. Because currently it is clearly not what the description says. The wardec system isnât used to âsettle disputes between player entities (player corporations or alliances)â, itâs sole purpose currently is to farm smaller/newer corps for structure cores or fish for the bottom dummies of large groups on the trade routes. If that is what CCP wants, the current system can simply stay, it does exactly that and whoever wants to âopt-outâ simply doesnât drop a structure.
The old system was even worse, that one was simply a ânoob bashing permitâ for ISK. Thankfully we are rid of it.
I personally would prefer a rework, but one that enforces more risks for those who declare wars and gives defenders more means of rallying support to make it a bit more balanced. It should reinvigorate a true merc-business by having unique merc contracts ingame (pay-per-allied-war-kill and pay-for-structure-survival), the removal of structure requirements for listed mercenary corps as allies and changed join/leave rules for chars during war to prevent corp-hopping. And of course fixing the RR-issues in combined fleetsâŚ
2 Likes
Ah Yes, I get you now.
You think all the Hi-Sec PVP aggro has gone onto the Indy community is this correct? So your suggestion addresses this?
Perhaps another idea might be to add a structure which enables some sort of extra combat missions or sites. (Not sure if already discussed) Perhaps all the players without structures will seriously consider getting this structure to have access to the new combat content?
Perhaps the old hi-sec mission/sites can be reduced in reward which makes this combat structure more appealing.
I definitely agree that structures are very much tied into indy players so of course they get the war-dec.
So, we can call it the Enemy Installation Scanner Array for now, which is set up in space and can assist your ship in scanning other systems around Eve for specially hidden enemy combat sites. The goal would generally be to design the benefits and bonuses so that mission runners wet themselves and dream nightly about establishing one. Faction/special guaranteed loot drops could be designed in to make the mission runners and war-deccers drool. The trick is to make it organic. I think going back to anyone being war-decced in any form is a step in the wrong direction.
I think the war-deccer already has too much power over who they can war-dec and I think the war deccer would be happy if this Array was designed well. Hopefully with something like this in place the war-dec issue will become more of a risk vs reward scenario.
tldr: use additional structures and risk vs reward to get non-structure pilots to establish structures and become vulnerable to pvp, instead of mechanics that give war-deccers more power at a rising isk cost.
Can anyone summarize the latest proposal in a few sentences?
If you find anchoring a deployable structure and installing a rig overly complicated, then thereâs not much left to discuss.
I doubt that at this point anything more stupidly simple than âyou make decisions and you will bear the consequencesâ can fix a two decade old problem of overuse, misuse and abuse of wardecs, because wardecs were originally designed as bribes paid to CONCORD to look the other way. If CCP really wants changes to a wardec mechanism, it has to be re-designed from the ground up (which would be the âconsequencesâ part).
It boils down to âYour ideas suckâ and âNo, YOUR ideas suckâ. Who would have thought.
There are as many proposals as there are respondents. The subject matter (not so much the original idea) is discussed in a notoriously remote corner of the forum. It deserves better exposure 
1 Like
The first post covers it.
your idiea of having it to fuel a rig on another structure used to declare wardecs is just dumb for HSâŚwhy have this middle man garbage. Just put a rig on the structure and be done with itâŚno skyhooks.
That is the stupid complicated stuff I am talking about that you are trying to implent. Screw Nullsec mechanics in HS. Take that crap and put it up your thruster port.
Somehow I had my doubts already, you not being a nullsec playerâŚ
I could explain it again but I expect the same result from you, not because of any reading comprehension deficit at your end, I know you to be quite knowledgeable about many game aspects when you want to be.
Could it be that you call it garbage because âconsequencesâ are not part of your scenario, but should be limited to the defender ?
Or is it that you consider hisec wardecârs intellectually challenged, their not being able to go beyond the âstupidly simple solutionsâ you allegedly prefer ?
Or both ?
Those were of course rhetorical questions.
Neither is in the playbook of EvE Online, btw 
Crap ? You mean the part (rig) of your idea (one of a few with at least some potential) to which I added re-invigorating elements (sorry, CCP, for shamelessly copying your meme) ? What a strange thing to say âŚ
And hereâs you getting upset about an idea no player has control over once itâs voiced, for its details nor its final implementation.
Having read through the first (and many subsequent) posts, I guess I donât understand what exactly is wrong with the current system?
It seems having a structure as a prerequisite for eligibility/WarDecs is working as intended. I think if you remove this youâre just going to see the farming of new players en masse.
What is the end goal here with changing the WarDec system?
From what i can gather Hi Sec folks can only be war-decced if they have a structure which seems to have caused some stagnancy within hi-sec pvp, The OP thinks the war-dec agro is now fully on the indy players in eve because they seem to need structures mostly.
So I think the goal is to find a way to get Non-indy players to put up structures thereby making them vulnerable to war-dec and hopefully ending the stagnation.
My idea was to reduce rewards/bouties for all non indy content, and then add ingame structures which give amazing bonuses to non indy content.
Most of the ideas here give the war-deccer extra options when itâs not needed, to solve this we just need to stick with the typical risk vs reward which every player knows to be the core ideals of Eve and will never be argued with. Give more different types of players (not just indy players) a valid and solid reason to put up structures and they will do it.
Thatâs what I can gather after re-reading it properly 
anyone feel free to correct me if Iâm wrong, hope this helps.
Your post had me thinking about the things that are capped and not in this game. Wouldnât it be cool or interesting if you are in a corp / alliance that owns the POCOâs you can just build as many command centers as possible on them. Everything you can build is infinitely scaleable if it can be defended.
Wardecs? I think a cap there would be good too. Requires selection. Could be interesting I think
Let me explain this slowly for nullsec brainâŚ
1.) Empire Space, LS and HSâŚdo not need the nullsec mechanic of skyhooks to fuel anything. So they do not need Skyhooks.
2.) HS upwells are required to declare wars, HS only, not LS/WH/NS.
3.) So you NS guys have your mechanics in a place where war decâs are not needed to shoot. LS has to change safety settings in some cases and be red to pod.
So, allow wardecs only from Citadel Structures, in HS this means Astrahus and Fortizar only.
AdditionallyâŚ
- Rigs made from T2 salvage only that allow 1 wardec per rig on these structures.
- Re-initiate the use of Starbase Charters in Empire space for large structures including PoCoâs.
(3 optional) re-instate the requirement to have a Faction Standing equal to the system sec status to even place a structure up.
These 3 things are EmpireâŚHIGHSEC mechanics.
what the 1st 2 do is:
1.) Limit number of wardecs by an entity without going into expensive structure spam, unless that group wishes to do so , therefore limiting Blanket wardecs.
2.) Puts pressure on those that wish to have large sprawling PoCo empires to invest into buying Charters from the market, or grinding LP stores for them for each Empire they want them in.
Puts pressure on those that may want to have Blanket war ability, or ability to place structures in all 4 of the Empire areas of space.
This would be done by taking the middle ground of Astrahus of 180 fuel per hour for PoCoâs in charters. Every upwell would require the same amount of charters per hour as fuel blocks they burn for HS/LS. Run out of either one and the structure stops working/goes abandoned.
What any of this would do(hopefully), is
Limit amount of wardecs able to be issued(without tedium)
Limit the amount of PoCoâs a single entity could operate(without tedium)
Make wars(in HS) more meaningful.
Possibly in roundabout way differentiate between Empire space and Nullsec political/diplomatic status (i dont see too many nullers wanting to grind for charters, or groups like Blackflag wanting to either simply to drop structures every where in HS to declare wars)
Now above I included a 3rd optional thing as wellâŚbut i dont like it cause it adds a garage mechanic into the mix as much as your Skyhook solution would.
1 Like
So I think the goal is to find a way to get Non-indy players to put up structures thereby making them vulnerable to war-dec and hopefully ending the stagnation.
That was my take as well. And it is true - industrial players are really the only players that benefit from structures in high-sec (outside of 1 or 2 private trading hubs - but I think null-sec entities control those).
The question really comes down to this: Why arenât any other non-industrial groups putting up structures in high-sec? Iâd wager itâs because 1) thereâs little if any benefit and 2) theyâd immediately get war-decâd. So the only corporations putting up structures are the ones that need to.
These both seem fairly reasonable. And by Faction standing, I take it you mean Amarr Empire, Caldari State, Gallente Federation and Minmatar Republic.
Letâs make it a standing of â6â to deploy an industrial structure and â9â to deploy any Citadel. Since WarDecâs require a Citadel, it should give industrial groups some breathing room.
yes, i do not really like the sec status mechanic however.
When this character was created, we wanted a POS tower for certain thingsâŚ
We could not put one up until the Corp had a Faction standing of 6 with Caldari for the .6 system we lived in.
So i started on the journey of turning in tags to certain places and doing faction missions for those standings before i could invite anyone into the corp.
Hence I am one of very few in my alliance that even bother with the Enemies Abound missions, cause my Gal and Minnie standings have been tanked ever since.
You corp standings will change per faction depending on the avg standings of the pilots in it. Which can prevent being able to put up structures.
I think it solves a lot of issues. But letâs take a more measured approach:
⢠Empire Standing of â1â: Deploy Raitaru or Athanor
⢠Empire Standing of â3â: Deploy Azbel or Tatara
⢠Empire Standing of â6â: Deploy Astrahus
⢠Empire Standing of â9â: Deploy Fortizar
This means you need an Empire standing of 6 to go to war - and an Empire standing of 9 if you want to deploy a large Citadel and use that to go to war.