# Are Wardecs always going to be broken? Is a fix even possible? **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [January 8, 2025, 2:17am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516 "2025-01-08T02:17:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 32
**Author:** ![Glenduil](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/glenduil/32/501812_2.png) [@Glenduil](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Glenduil)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 2:43pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/635 "2025-02-06T14:43:20Z")
How much time must I remain in space in High Sec to avoid punishments? 8 hours a day? What if I work or have a busy life that limits my time to every other day (which is actually the case- I’m not on every day. I am usually on every other day). Keep in mind- I’m not attacking you- I’m asking. You proposed penalties for being logged off. That was your idea. So where is the line between inactivity and a real life engagement? Can someone impose penalties on me just by war decing me? How long would those penalties last? Will I be able to deal with a 2 day busy life and not return to the game with a month’s worth of ISK penalties (raised taxes, crap salvage, or insignificant bounties)? any penalties forced on me because I was too busy to log in will end my time in Eve. I’ll tell you that right now. I don’t play games that punish me for not logging in. ---
**Author:** ![Kezrai\_Charzai](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kezrai_charzai/32/394578_2.png) [@Kezrai\_Charzai](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kezrai_Charzai)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 3:03pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/636 "2025-02-06T15:03:57Z")
> [@Glenduil](#): > > How much time must I remain in space in High Sec to avoid punishments? 8 hours a day? Well again, you’re down to asking for specific implementation details that are the job of the devs, not of a forum poster who has relatively data on how players spend their game time. From a game design perspective, there are ways to determine this. First you decide if you want one side or the other to have an advantage in the ‘ease’ of their tasks, or be ‘fair’ to both. Then you look at how difficult it is for an attacker to locate and destroy defender ships, and how much time is spent to achieve that. (From previous wardec statistics that the devs will have, but I don’t.) Then you set the points for kills, and for defender War Action tasks, so they have a roughly equivalent chance of racking up Action points per day. So for instance, if wardec stats show that generally, a kill-focused war dec (as opposed to a structure loot-drop focussed dec, which is mostly what we have now) could earn 6 points a day from kills in 3 hours of activity, then you set Defender action points so a defender can earn roughly 6 points from roughly 3 hours of activity. If you can’t log in every day, neither can everyone on the other side. If you’re super-focused on scoring every point every day, then you’re in space that much more, and making it that much more likely the other side can track you and stop you. You’re free to get bogged down in implementation details if you like, but those are dev issues which need to be resolved with dev data and tools. All this is, is to show that “extreme aggressor bias” can be addressed directly, “100 to 1 odds” can be addressed, “defenders have no reason to participate” can be addressed. > [@Glenduil](#): > > Can someone impose penalties on me just by war decing me? No, no penalties can be imposed by war deccing you. The most that can happen is that if a war is declared on you (because you **chose** to become war eligible, which you can still avoid - just like now), and you lose the war due to lack of activity, then some of your R&R bonuses would be _reduced_ by a point or two. Which just gives you more incentive to participate and win a future war to gain them back. > [@Glenduil](#): > > Will I be able to deal with a 2 day busy life and not return to the game with a month’s worth of ISK penalties (raised taxes, crap salvage, or insignificant bounties)? Yes. You can easily avoid all penalties, and none of the ‘bonuses’ ever go ‘negative’ - it’s stated in the proposal that the lowest they can go is 0 (which is effectively what you have now). > [@Glenduil](#): > > any penalties forced on me because I was too busy to log in will end my time in Eve. I’ll tell you that right now. I don’t play games that punish me for not logging in. **All** the features of EVE have the potential to draw players in or push them out of the game, depending on how the player perceives that feature. CCP made it clear that having wardecs, with no viable options for defenders to rack up a ‘win’ or gain advantages, was driving _many_ players out of the game. If they could retain 100 players, but lose 10 who feel similar to you, I’m sure they’d consider that a win. I’m confident that a wardec design based on the principles I’ve outlined would retain and attract significantly more players than it pushes away. If you feel differently, that’s fine too. But it would probably help if you didn’t keep basing your resistance on purposely misinterpreting features as being the opposite of what they’re stated to be. ---
**Author:** ![Glenduil](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/glenduil/32/501812_2.png) [@Glenduil](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Glenduil)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 3:11pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/637 "2025-02-06T15:11:00Z")
Ahhh so you do want to kick out anyone who doesn’t abandon their lives in order to become a slave to this game. Finally some honesty concerning this ridiculous proposal of yours. “If you have a busy real life, you don’t belong in this game!” > [@Kezrai\_Charzai](#): > > **All** the features of EVE have the potential to draw players in or push them out of the game, depending on how the player perceives that feature. But **NONE** of those features provides penalties like your proposal does. Not a single one. I don’t get penalties for not having my ship blow up. You are the one who proposed stuff like that. CCP has not. > [@Kezrai\_Charzai](#): > > CCP made it clear that having wardecs, with no viable options for defenders to rack up a ‘win’ or gain advantages, was driving _many_ players out of the game. I doubt punishing people for not doing it was their idea of a proper fix. And it’s clear by the responses, I’m not the only one who thinks that your idea is less than ideal. > [@Kezrai\_Charzai](#): > > But it would probably help if you didn’t keep basing your resistance on purposely misinterpreting features as being the opposite of what they’re stated to be. I misinterpreted nothing. I asked you for specifics and you gave them I responded to those specifics. You don’t like opposition. It triggers you. You accuse anyone who doesn’t agree with you of misunderstanding you. ---
**Author:** ![Arthur\_Aihaken](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arthur_aihaken/32/504104_2.png) [@Arthur\_Aihaken](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arthur_Aihaken)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 3:28pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/638 "2025-02-06T15:28:56Z")
> [@Glenduil](#): > > Just remove war decing. Have structures get repossessed if left unattended without fuel for 3 months. Works for me. ---
**Author:** ![QuakeGod](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/quakegod/32/480339_2.png) [@QuakeGod](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/QuakeGod)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 3:55pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/639 "2025-02-06T15:55:07Z")
oh hell no. Then everyone and their dog would have 1,000 citadels littering every system… ---
**Author:** ![Kezrai\_Charzai](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kezrai_charzai/32/394578_2.png) [@Kezrai\_Charzai](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kezrai_Charzai)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 3:56pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/640 "2025-02-06T15:56:03Z")
> [@Glenduil](#): > > Ahhh so you do want to kick out anyone who doesn’t abandon their lives in order to become a slave to this game. Finally some honesty Dude, seriously, have you lost it? You claim my proposal is the opposite of what I’ve actually stated, then accuse _me_ of dishonesty? There is absolutely nothing in my proposal that “kicks out anyone who doesn’t become a slave to the game”. You’ve not only been deliberately dishonest, multiple times, it appears you’re entirely focused on creating ‘features’ that aren’t in the proposal to “prove” it’s wrong. I can only assume you desperately want to discredit it, but can’t find a truthful basis to do so. So you keep inventing lies instead. You should look up ‘strawman argument’ sometime. You know, when you’re being honest about yourself. > [@Glenduil](#): > > But **NONE** of those features provides penalties like your proposal does. Not a single one. Actually, the CCP penalty for being in a non-war eligible NPC corp has been the 11% tax, for well over a decade. And CCP recently added LP tax to that (which I didn’t). Is there _any_ point at all you can be honest (or correct) about? > [@Glenduil](#): > > You don’t like opposition. It triggers you. You accuse anyone who doesn’t agree with you of misunderstanding you. You literally invented exact opposite points to what I proposed, pretended they were part of my proposal, and then disagreed with the nonsense you invented. So either you deeply misunderstood what I wrote, or you deliberately lied about them to make them look bad. And you’re still doing it. So much for your ‘honesty’. You’ve asked your questions, I’ve provided specific answers. Inventing fabricated nonsense for your strawman arguments isn’t ‘opposition’, it’s just desperation and dishonesty. So far all you’ve done is flail about inventing BS to ‘disagree’ with, despite being proven wrong on every attempt. Tell you what: feel free to imagine **all the further nonsense you desire**. I’ll just leave you to rant away by yourself. Hopefully a time-out will help you calm down a little and maybe get something right for once. ---
**Author:** ![Syzygium](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/syzygium/32/510263_2.png) [@Syzygium](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Syzygium)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 4:20pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/641 "2025-02-06T16:20:43Z")
As I said earlier: - buff HP of citadels so they can’t be shot down quickly or at least require a _huge_ fleet to do so (which would not be “effective” any more, given between how much people the loot would need to be shared) - give them some auto-defenses like POSes have, Sentries that can deal ~2500 dps within 150km to make cheap Oracle- or Kiki- reinforments impossible. **THEN:** **- let any Structure (Citadel, POS, POCO, whatever) in Highsec be attacked at will like an MTU or MobileDepot, but anyone shooting at it gets suspect** What will it lead to: - all citadels, especially abandoned ones can be removed - the first reinforcement attack will be at risk being harassed by anyone the defenders can call in quickly or even random/nearby PvPers living in the area who notice the attack (rather low risk for a competent fleet, but a risk) - those who are not abandoned will enter reinforce, which means there will be a _second_ attack at a _known timer_ - and _everyone will know there will be lots of suspects_. This means: Risk of Third-Party ambushes. BIG PVP in HS. Real risks attacking a structure. Could be an easy target, could be a bait… Lots of DESTRUCTION. That should be _exactly_ what the wardeccing corps claim that they want. Big PvP action in HS. Give it to them. ---
**Author:** ![Glenduil](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/glenduil/32/501812_2.png) [@Glenduil](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Glenduil)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 6:10pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/642 "2025-02-06T18:10:12Z")
I love this idea!!! ---
**Author:** ![Rag\_Nyt](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/rag_nyt/32/381860_2.png) [@Rag\_Nyt](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Rag_Nyt)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 6:13pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/643 "2025-02-06T18:13:38Z")
This would make it impossible to use logi, something you need to survive the structure defences. ---
**Author:** ![QuakeGod](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/quakegod/32/480339_2.png) [@QuakeGod](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/QuakeGod)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 6:14pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/644 "2025-02-06T18:14:44Z")
As with anything else in EVE, it wouldn’t end up working the way you think it would. It would either be exploited, or end up always favoring the larger corp. You’ve been playing EVE long enough to know this… ---
**Author:** ![Syzygium](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/syzygium/32/510263_2.png) [@Syzygium](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Syzygium)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 6:32pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/645 "2025-02-06T18:32:03Z")
> [@Rag\_Nyt](#): > > This would make it impossible to use logi, something you need to survive the structure defences. Well, thats something CCP could easily adress by allowing RR among all those who have the same structure aggro timer. It doesn’t even need to be the normal “suspect” status (which indeed blocks incoming RR), but shooting a structure in HS could give a special “warfare timer” that makes the affected pilots attackable without CONCORD intervention but still able to receive remote-support by anyone else with the same timer. > [@QuakeGod](#): > > As with anything else in EVE, it wouldn’t end up working the way you think it would. It would either be exploited, or end up always favoring the larger corp. You’ve been playing EVE long enough to know this… Unless you get very specific, I have to reject that claim under “naysaying” out of abstract abuse fears. Please name _specific_ abuse scenarios and lets see if they could be easily adressed right from the getgo. It’s not that hard to adapt an idea to block the most outstanding circumvention/exploiting aspects. ---
**Author:** ![Gloria\_Exercitus](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/gloria_exercitus/32/509735_2.png) [@Gloria\_Exercitus](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Gloria_Exercitus)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 8:02pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/646 "2025-02-06T20:02:54Z")
> [@MB\_ThePhotographer](#): > > The numbers were growing. What part of this equation do you have a problem understanding? The bit where you are vague. ---
**Author:** ![Kezrai\_Charzai](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kezrai_charzai/32/394578_2.png) [@Kezrai\_Charzai](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kezrai_Charzai)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 10:34pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/647 "2025-02-06T22:34:46Z")
> [@Syzygium](#): > > That should be _exactly_ what the wardeccing corps claim that they want. It’s irrelevant what wardec corps ‘say’ they want. What’s relevant is what’s good for the game and for retaining more players and moving them along a growth path, or at least not hammering them out of the game. I gave your proposal a ‘like’ because it was funny to read and would lead to a few massive furballs before everyone figured out how broken it was. It’s got holes you could drive a truck through. First, all these “just make citadels stronger” (or cheaper, or invulnerable, or weaker, or whatever) ‘solutions’ have the problem that they affect the whole game. CCP wants citadels **blown up** , that’s clear. And citadel bashes are already boring enough in various areas. CCP isn’t about to make it even harder to remove them, and easier for groups to ‘own’ space by filling it with strong citadels. Second, your “all citadels can be attacked but suspect timers for everybody” just means someone will put a 200±man fleet together and go around and smash every citadel in high sec. And if any smaller group attacks a citadel anywhere, that same fleet will just show up on the timer and smash them as well. All you’re doing is moving nullbloc tactics to high sec: “biggest fleet takes all”. And it does nothing for defenders. A small corp isn’t going to defend against a large incoming fleet no matter how many flags you pile on them. People should leave ‘fixes’ that’re even worse than the current situation up to CCP. At least they have experience with it! ---
**Author:** ![QuakeGod](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/quakegod/32/480339_2.png) [@QuakeGod](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/QuakeGod)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 10:55pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/648 "2025-02-06T22:55:21Z")
Not only that, it would be a ganker’s paradise. Just show up to a citadel that’s being attacked and nuke as many ships as they can, with absolutely zero reprisal from Concord… ---
**Author:** ![QuakeGod](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/quakegod/32/480339_2.png) [@QuakeGod](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/QuakeGod)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 10:58pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/649 "2025-02-06T22:58:12Z")
Long story short, it doesn’t matter how you change the mechanics of any aspect of EVE, N+1 always wins… ---
**Author:** ![Kezrai\_Charzai](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kezrai_charzai/32/394578_2.png) [@Kezrai\_Charzai](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kezrai_Charzai)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 11:06pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/650 "2025-02-06T23:06:45Z")
> [@QuakeGod](#): > > N+1 always wins… Incorrect. As my example of converting wars to a per-capita scoring system shows. “N+X wins” only applies because CCP keeps taking utterly simplistic approaches to conflict, and then taking over a decade to realize they did it wrong. At which point they simply shift to a different utterly simplistic approach. Some of these ham-fisted ‘solutions’ have worked out better than others… structures for war eligibility is actually one of their better bandaids. But just because CCP has traditionally approached an issue incorrectly in the past, doesn’t mean more appropriate solutions are _impossible_. It just means the CCP design and implementation process is unlikely to discover them. ---
**Author:** ![MB\_ThePhotographer](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mb_thephotographer/32/373722_2.png) [@MB\_ThePhotographer](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/MB_ThePhotographer)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2025, 2:57am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/651 "2025-02-07T02:57:12Z")
> [@Gloria\_Exercitus](#): > > The bit where you are vague. [EVE-Offline :: EVE-Online Status monitor](https://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility) Do your homework. ---
**Author:** ![Glenduil](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/glenduil/32/501812_2.png) [@Glenduil](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Glenduil)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2025, 3:32am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/652 "2025-02-07T03:32:31Z")
> [@Kezrai\_Charzai](#): > > I gave your proposal a ‘like’ because it was funny to read and would lead to a few massive furballs before everyone figured out how broken it was. It’s got holes you could drive a truck through. You’re intentionally misinterpreting his proposal. ---
**Author:** ![Syzygium](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/syzygium/32/510263_2.png) [@Syzygium](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Syzygium)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2025, 5:58am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/653 "2025-02-07T05:58:21Z")
> [@Kezrai\_Charzai](#): > > 200±man fleet together and go around and smash every citadel in high sec. Doubt, because on the timers this 200man fleet would suddenly meet another 100-300man fleet from someone else trying to get their share of content. Or a 50man sniperfleet trying to pick apart their most valuable ships. The greatest risk when attacking structures anywhere is that you expose yourself to a known timer and don’t know who might want to join the party. And tbh _exactly_ that blobfleet can go around attacking all HS citadels right now, just using a cheap wardec for a 100M on each of them and be granted full CONCORD protection while doing it. > [@Kezrai\_Charzai](#): > > All these “just make citadels stronger” (or cheaper, or invulnerable, or weaker, or whatever) ‘solutions’ have the problem that they affect the whole game. CCP wants citadels **blown up** , that’s clear. And citadel bashes are already boring enough in various areas. CCP isn’t about to make it even harder to remove them, and easier for groups to ‘own’ space by filling it with strong citadels. Then the game will remain in it’s stagnating status until they realize that it was the design of POSes that allowed small groups to hold a share of space because their removal was so hard/annoying/time consuming that it wouldn’t be done by any larger random large group out of boredom and/or for riskless core-farming. This game only has a future if small groups are allowed to thrive. They _need_ upwell structures with the combat power of POSes to counter the numbers superiority of larger groups at least when defending. That is how ‘fortresses’ worked in all human history and it ist the only viable counter to large groups: make an attack on the smaller group so costly in time, effort and losses that the larger group rather let them live as long as they don’t give a real (political) reason to be wiped out in a large campaign. I can only repeat it over and over again: The design of Upwell Citadels (and all the attached mechanics like access and asset safety) was the single worst game design decision CCP ever made. It has made large groups completely untouchable and skeletized the status quo for eternity. You can see it every day and you will see no change, no matter how much bandaid and good will you invest. ---
**Author:** ![Komi\_Valentine](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/komi_valentine/32/502956_2.png) [@Komi\_Valentine](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Komi_Valentine)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2025, 11:21am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516/654 "2025-02-07T11:21:21Z")
> [@Syzygium](#): > > I can only repeat it over and over again: The design of Upwell Citadels (and all the attached mechanics like access and asset safety) was the single worst game design decision CCP ever made. It has made large groups completely untouchable and skeletized the status quo for eternity. You can see it every day and you will see no change, no matter how much bandaid and good will you invest. I agree with this. ACLs, preset timers, asset safety, unlimited slots, cargo and ship storage. It’s especially interesting comparing them to Control Towers and see what the actual “benefits” are. ACLs: Instead of sharing hangar access which is always a bit sketchy preset timers: Reinforcing a POS even if you don’t blow it up will consume it’s stronthium. Timers were not set in stone and allowed for gaming the system a bit asset safety: instead of stuff being lost and looted, Interbus just transport it for free no matter where you are unlimited industry slots: you only need one station to build unlimited amounts of stuff unlimited cargo + storage: you can sit on a stockpile of goods and ships. Control Towers are the **superior mechanic**. They can be attacked by smaller groups and slowly grinded down in a tug of war. The attacker doesn’t take down the tower, but can take down stronth or weapon batteries. Attacking Citadels of a bigger group usually means you waste 1 hour of time and reinforcing doesn’t even hurt the defender even a bit. My observation leads to the conclusion that over time either CCP or Nullsec Megaempire Influencers have pushed these mechanics to strenghten the big groups while weakening the small groups and hiding the change behind a cloak of “innovation”. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516.md?page=31) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/are-wardecs-always-going-to-be-broken-is-a-fix-even-possible/473516.md?page=33)