You should have linked it… 
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit having enough time to read forums!
I can’t catch up with all the posts tonight, and I’m still trying to get some feedback from people I know in-game. I’m also not finished reading Kezrai’s proposal and it looks like there mya be a couple more in here now as well.
Thank you all for replyying and thinking about htis, I’ll catch upo further on the weeknd.
2 Likes
Take your time. There has been no good idea in how long now? 
Abandon all hope, all ye who enter this discussion…
1 Like
Simple works for me. I added likes and comments for @Arthur_Aihaken’s straight +25/+50% bonuses, and for @stefnia_Freir’s suggestions for 1 medium Upwell allowed, and @Gloria_Exercitus’ for increasing citadel defenses. All of which were simple and easy, But I do also see that some issues don’t have simple answers, since none of thos suggestion give defender corp any assistance in fighting back, much less winning a war. SO I think its not so simple to fix.
I did manage to pin down some guys in 2 corps this weekend (one indy, one social) to ask what they thought. But small selection abnd biased, since neither corp is war eleigible and neither one wants to be.
I started out asking “Hey guys, forum post I did, Wardecs, asking how to fix, go read see what you think”. Nobody was interested in reading. In fact, turns out nobody was interested in ficing Wardecs. As far as they were concerned wardecs are solved - don’t be in an eligible corp, and if you do end up in one and get dec’d, either leave or just log on some other character.
So I gave the quickie versions in chat. General feedback was, +25/+50% bonuses would be nice but probably too abusable. 1 Free Medium Upwell sounded good and people in both corps said maybe the corp would use that, so long as no wars resulted. But they already have NPC and other corps Upwells to work out of so maybe not.
I was surprised when the idea of “better defenses for citadels” was actually given a “bad idea” vote by 3 people, and not much response from the others. Although I got distracted and didnt ask ‘why’ it was a bad idea.
For Kezrai’s idea, keeping in mind the “1 minute rule”, I said “Okay, next idea: Wardec happens, defender chooses which actions they can complete in order to win, mining or missions or whatever, and those tasks are scored to give defenders a fair chance to compete even against larger full-PvP corps. Rewards are 8% bonus on all payouts and mining, and if they win, a chunk of ISK from the losing corp. Souund good?”
Had some some questions about the tasks etc which I could only semi-answer, but again the feedback was “Meh. 8% isn’t that much. Probably avoid them anyway.” And apparently unless the ISK reward is at least a billion, people didn’t think much of that either.
So that’s the biased feedback from some multi-year vets who’re already in the habit of avoiding wardecs, which maybe isn’t so useful. Buit it’s all I got.
Finishing reading now to see if any other cool stuff I’ve missed.
1 Like
Hello, @Arthur_Aihaken had some similar ideas abotu standings. But it seems to mostly apply to who can place a structure. Other than limiting who can place structures at all, I don’t see how this affects wardecs? It doesn’t seem to change anything from either the attacker or the defender view.
Let me know what I’ve missed here, thanks.
OK I think I understand better now. This seems more focused on getting corps to interact more with the space around their structures, not so much about wars.
So it’s about structure ownership but not about war mechanics, correct?
The main purpose of them is to break you out of your safe space and into the wider world of EVE Online.
In the simplest terms, the corporation would need to be able to maintain a certain standing with each Empire to be able to wardec and maintain a wardec in that region - just having a structure and the defender having a structure isn’t enough.
This is just in high-sec only. If your corporation’s Empire standing in that region drops below a certain level - any active wars immediately end.
Something like 5.0 to deploy a structure and 7.0 or higher to issue a wardec. In addition, deploying a structure should have some bonuses for that corporation (only):
• Astrahaus (15% LP bonus), Fortizar (25% LP bonus)
• Athanor (15% mining yield bonus), Tatara (25% mining yield bonus)
• Raitaru (15% manufacturing speed), Azbel (25% manufacturing speed)
And if your corporation’s Empire standings drop below 5.0, your structure(s) automatically go suspect. The idea here is that if you want to play in the carebear sandbox - you’re going to have to do at least a little carebearing yourself…
1 Like
In the past, like when my corporation was created…
You had to have a Faction Standing of 6 to place POS in Vaankalen Star System.
So in the beginning I had to get Caldari Faction Standing 6 and put up our 1st tower before i could let anyone into the corporation, cause your Corporation Standings is avg of every pilot in your corporation after 7 days being in it.
So if any wardeccr or any one wanting to be war eligible by puttin up an Upwell/PoCO/or POS tower, they would first have to have the Faction STanding for the system they want to deploy in.
And then maintain that standing always otherwise you basically lose the structure.
This would ensure that only those that want to deal with wardecs would be putting up structures, etc etc.
Getting and maintaing Faction Standings might be to easy to game.
So, adding Starbase Charters, (they are Empire Specific) as fuel would ensure only those that really really want to “EMpire Build” would work to maintain that type of fuel since charters only come from LP stores.
If we use 40 per hour as a base line, that would
960 per day at 4,800 LP
6,720 per week at 33,600 LP
and so on…
So PoCo, Upwell, etc would req interaction with mission running, the market, or making deals with those that run missions.
a Star system with 8 PoCo would cost 7,680 charters or 38,400 LP per day…
Some groups have as many as 20 or more moons being mined in HS…thats a lot of LP.
What this does is make those doing these activites or wanting to do wardeccs to really really think if the effort is worth it…and for the complaints of seal clubbing…i doubt very few would be doing that for long.
I have the solution…
- Scrap the binary ‘war eligibility’ ( on of off ) flag entirely.
- Introduce a sliding scale of factors that make a corp more, or less, eligible for both being able to attack and for being able to do the attacking. Two separate scales.
Defender Scale :-
- To be eligible for attack a corp must be over a certain size
- Members who swap to another corp if condition (1) is met are still eligible up to a week after the swap. This prevents corps simply temporarily reducing member count to avoid the size limit.
- Structures are only eligible if the corp has more than 50 members…and again rule (2) applies.
Attacker Scale…
- Attacking corps can be any size…BUT…declaring conflict results in a 15 minute suspect flag in highsec that anyone can respond to. This opens up highsec wardeccers to being attacked by absolutely anyone in highsec.
- The usual 3 minute engagement timer also applies.
- If more than a specific number of members from another corp attack the wardeccing corp, then that corp itself becomes war eligible. So the advantage of (1) needs to be applied very carefully.
The great thing about the above is that it is self limiting, yet equally could result in an all-out war cascade.
1 Like
If you have to throw in loopholes to make it work or mitigat gaming it, then it is a bad idea.
I almost wish @Kannibal_Kane or @Tora_Bushido would chime in on this thread.
I have a better idea: Your corporation announces it’s desire to go to war with another corporation. All warring corporation members go permanently suspect while the war is active. Let the games begin!
1 Like
It completely removes the notion of wardecced corps being ‘helpless’. But at the same time, it puts helpers at risk. What I love most about it is how it could lead to a whole cascade of wars, with the helpers themselves becoming war eligible, and so on with anyone who helps them. A ‘war cascade’ would be brilliant…spreading across highsec and eventually dying down.
“Suspect Day” in high-sec. Hilarity ensues…
So does re-instituting Faction Standings and use of Starbase Charters, cause it means you have to put in the Effort to want to play at that level. Otherwise go play Halo and F off.
WD’s are ridiculous. Imagine IBM blowing up Apple’s headquarters.
Do you really think that our society will devolve to a point where you can destroy people and corporations on a whim?
No…I’m against anything that forces people to do PvE in order to do PvP. It’s supposed to be a ‘sandbox’, not a hoop jumping exercise.
Have you ever heard of a concept known as a ‘game’ ?