Are Wardecs always going to be broken? Is a fix even possible?

[Glenduil]

@Chewytowel_Haklar

Without that one experience of a wardec in High Sec sov, and all of us rather chill and pretty nice players trying to defend ourselves, none of this likely would have happened.

Would you have stayed that way forever without a war dec? Would you never have ventured into Low Sec on your own? Seen a helpless ship and blown it up? Been blown up by a roving band on 0.2?

Everyone grows. I doubt you’d be mining rocks still to this day without ever having left that system in 11 years. Even I went into low sec several times when I first started playing. I got blown up, tried again, and got blown up again. I knew nothing about fits and no one cared to teach me. I had to learn everything myself the hard way. With my start in this game, it’s a wonder I still play. My start absolutely sucked. But even I explored and grew.

[Max_Deveron]

@Gloria_Exercitus

It would, but then there’s no shortage of smaller corps like Bully Brigade who I’ve seen destroying abandoned structures with 3 or 4 man fleets.

Bully Brigade destroys its own structures. They put them up, let ppl use them, then do what ever it takes after some time to make them go abadndoned so asset safety does not work, then they blow them up and scoop all the left over stuff ppl had in their personal and corp hangars.

[Chewytowel_Haklar]

I don’t think my trajectory would have been anywhere near the same no. I may have flown out into Null Sec cause it was appealing to see what the big dogs were doing out there. I may have flown into Low Sec and even tried to rat or mine in various areas, and I may have done also what many others probably did… log off and perhaps never return. But without taking risks like you did as well who knows.

[Kezrai_Charzai]

@Glenduil

Wars are expensive so unless the reward is billions of ISK, defenders will almost always leave.

You seem pretty hung up on structures, and not really following the logic of either my or even your own proposals.

Wars aren’t ‘expensive’ if you don’t lose ships and don’t have to either attack or defend a structure. My proposal removes structures as a requirement for wars. So the question becomes “can your corp complete war actions without too much loss?”. Which means you need an active and capable corp who knows how to get their normal activities done (ie. mining, exploring, missioning or whatever) without getting caught and ganked.

So no, wars aren’t ‘expensive’. They become a contest of skill in the game, and if you’re out mining in Ventures, for instance, then you’re not losing these billion-ISK ships that you somehow keep assuming are getting whelped left and right.

@Glenduil

You can’t offer lower taxes (or raise taxes for not participating) and have that be an incentive.

Yeah actually you can, and CCP did just that back in 2014 or so when they bumped the NPC corp tax up to 11%. Resulting in thousands of players leaving their NPC corps and starting or joining player ones. Which continues to this day.

@Glenduil

To fully understand the point of war decs, you have to discuss the point of structures.

War decs existed for years before the current structures were even introduced, and for years more before structures became a requirement. And wars had the same problems then that they do now.

@Glenduil

This means structures are a good thing.

Well, actually, what you’re saying here is “structures provide rewards for a corp, and a corp has to be more active in order to support those rewards”. Which is good as far as it goes. Except you still end up with a structure that 98% of all corps cannot possibly defend from a serious attack by a wardec corp.

@Glenduil

Thus, the REAL incentive for defending a structure would be to remove some of its features from NPC stations (or give it more features unique to structures).

Well again, you’re focused on structures, and again, really all you’re saying is “a corporate feature needs to deliver corporate rewards”. The problem is you’re trying to tie those rewards to a structure which, for most corps, cannot be successfully defended. So what you’re really saying here is “take NPC structure options away from smaller corps, and add rewards and bonuses and features to structures which only larger corps can possibly defend.”

So you’re back to big corps win, small growing corps get shafted.

My proposal removes structure requirements, gives small corps an equal chance at winning wars and growing, gives players incentives for being in active and successful corps (which can now viably mean ‘small active corps’), and doesn’t tie any of that to a structure which cannot be reasonably defended.

Are you seeing the pattern here? You keep trying to tie everything about wardecs to structures. But that is going to fail because the vast majority of corps can’t defend against a wardec corp that’s capable of fielding 100+ fleets to take down a structure.

You’re also advocating taking gameplay options and resources away from everyone who doesn’t volunteer to be the fish in someone else’s barrel. Improving gameplay isn’t about removing viable options, it’s about creating them.

@Glenduil

it gets very difficult to incentivize defense.

Hmm. It’s almost like that’s why I removed “defend a structure” as the only possible option for defenders. Gosh, what was I thinking, to give actually viable options to defenders instead of the unachievable one of expecting a non-PvP corp to defend a giant floating target from a PvP corp?

And of course, you’ve also jumped from “beginner corp” to “already built up” corps with multiple citadels and moon mining ops… with no acknowledgement of the massive gap between those two states.

Corps need incentives for players to be in them, disincentives for not being in them, and viable growth paths and means to get from being ‘starter’ to ‘growing’ to ‘decent’ to ‘strong’ corps. You can’t just assume everyone is going to join corps that are already strong.

[Arthur_Aihaken]

For those joining the discussion late, let me see if I can summarize the 500+ posts thus far:

• The vast majority are of the opinion that there should be conflict in high-sec, and that the ability to wage war between corporations should exist.
• There’s also a general consensus that wardecs serve a “nuisance” benefit by providing a mechanism to remove abandoned structures.
• The cost of wardecs (100m ISK fixed) is perceived as being too low and that it should be increased to at least 2-5x the current value.
• There is a firm belief that “seal clubbing” frequently occurs in high-sec, that the current wardec mechanism further enhances this kind of abuse and that there’s little recourse or options for the defender.
• A few different mechanisms (some elaborate) have been floated to address this, but providing a grace period to corporations after the first time they deploy a structure and again after losing a war might reduce the frequency of this and allow corporations to recover from losses.

And there was a lot of “epeen” measuring going on with respect to one’s PvP, wardec (etc.) prowess.

[Mr_Epeen]

@Arthur_Aihaken

And there was a lot of epean

You spelled my name wrong

Mr Epeen

[Arthur_Aihaken]

Fixed it for you.

[Glenduil]

@Kezrai_Charzai

You seem pretty hung up on structures, and not really following the logic of either my or even your own proposals.

@Kezrai_Charzai

My proposal removes structures as a requirement for wars.

I don’t like doing this, but you leave me no choice. You “removed” structures as a requirement for war decing the same way I declared that the sun is not bright. Saying doesn’t make it so. Let me illustrate:

@Kezrai_Charzai

Along with voluntarily posting a War Indemnity Bond to become eligible, entities become eligible under these conditions:

• Any Corp with over 100 members must post a WIB before accepting more members.
• Any Alliance with over 150 members must post a WIB.
• Placing a Quantum Core in a Structure requires a WIB posted (see War Structure Modifiers).

Any Corporation with 100 members must become war eligible before they can got to 101 members. This means that any corp that is 100 members or fewer that does not have a structure cannot be War Deced. They are not war eligible. They cannot be attacked without incurring The Wrath of Concord.

You then went on to say that placing a Quantum Core Structure REQUIRES A WIB. Thus, getting a structure regardless of corp size makes you war eligible. Thus, a small to medium sized corp is not forced into your war system unless they have a structure.

You then said:

@Kezrai_Charzai

Structures are no longer a requirement for war.

Before continuing to say:

@Kezrai_Charzai

Corps can place one structure with a Limited Core. A corp of 15 or more members can place a single Medium Structure no closer than 10,000 KM from another object (meaning they’re not on-grid with anything). The Limited Core will cost only 50 Million ISK and doesn’t support all functions. Eg. no rigs can be installed or something.

And:

@Kezrai_Charzai

The intent here is to give smaller, non-war eligible corps a home base and some experience with managing structures before they put large amounts at risk. So limit it however you like.

Meaning, that if you want to play with a fully functional structure, you have to be war eligible.

The only exception is if you want to become a corp with greater than 100 members (grandfathered into over 150 members).

You can say, “I removed the structures as a requirement of war” all you want, but clearly you didn’t.

I apologize, but you did write this. I didn’t. I’m merely quoting it because you accused me over and over of not reading it while you went on to lie about its contents.

And there is also this- your summary at the end:

@Kezrai_Charzai

One issue is the usual “we need to be able to remove any structure”. I’d say either the size/core limits and the 10,000KM distance remove this issue, or create a mechanic to issue a War Threat for 200 million ISK. War Threat gives defender 3 Weeks to take down that structure, otherwise they automatically become War Eligible (and incur War Debt if needed).

AGAIN- the structure is key!!! The structure is here as a requirement.

If structures weren’t a requirement for war decing, then every corp would be eligible even without them or there would be another requirement (size perhaps) and those that were not large enough would be able to build a fully functional quantum core powered structure without being eligible.

That’s how that works.

[Gloria_Exercitus]

@Arthur_Aihaken

There is a firm belief that “seal clubbing” frequently occurs in high-sec, that the current wardec mechanism further enhances this kind of abuse and that there’s little recourse or options for the defender.

Some of the ‘seal clubbing’ is assumed…based on no-one showing up to defend. However, as I pointed out earlier, a fair portion of the incidents where nobody shows up to defend are where the structure was already abandoned even before the wardec.

This is the problem with ‘data’. It needs context.

[Arthur_Aihaken]

@Gloria_Exercitus

Some of the ‘seal clubbing’ is assumed…based on no-one showing up to defend. However, as I pointed out earlier, a fair portion of the incidents where nobody shows up to defend are where the structure was already abandoned even before the wardec.

This is the problem with ‘data’. It needs context.

In the absence of ‘data’ (who knows when or if that will ever emerge), let’s assume it happens - but less frequently than it did under the old system. So probably still an issue to some extent - but not as nearly abusive as it once was.

[Kezrai_Charzai]

@Arthur_Aihaken

let me see if I can summarize the 500+ posts thus far:

An excellent idea and summary, thank you Arthur. However I’d like to point out a few contrasting thoughts and notions that have come up either in this thread or over the decade+ of wardec discussions:

@Arthur_Aihaken

• There’s also a general consensus that wardecs serve a “nuisance” benefit by providing a mechanism to remove abandoned structures.

Also POCOs or other structures, and beyond ‘nuisance removal’, genuine beefs between corps, or simply to provide hunting opportunities. Which are valid gameplay, within reason.

@Arthur_Aihaken

• The cost of wardecs (100m ISK fixed) is perceived as being too low and that it should be increased to at least 2-5x the current value

Actually only a few posters have expressed this. Back when wardec costs were increased to 100 million, it was pointed out by many that this would force small wardec corps to combine into large wardec corps… which is mostly what happened. Some posters here have advocated cheaper and/or size-scaled wardec fees.

@Arthur_Aihaken

There is a firm belief that “seal clubbing” frequently occurs in high-sec

Not so much a ‘belief’ as firmly statistically stated by CCP, the CSM, and my own review here of recent wardec activity. (As well as a previous analysis a couple years ago by Scipio Artelius which I had saved).

@Arthur_Aihaken

but providing a grace period to corporations after the first time they deploy a structure and again after losing a war might reduce the frequency of this and allow corporations to recover from losses.

Eh, sneaking your own and Gloria’s idea in as a ‘summary’ is a bit sketchy. First, you proposed 90 and 60 days respectively… which is nowhere near enough time for a corp to grow from ‘beginner’ to ‘decent sized capable of defense’. However it’s likely plenty of time to exploit a “start new corp, put up structures immediately, make ISK with it for X-1 ‘safe’ days, take structures down, repeat” cycle. At least get some critique on an idea before presenting it as a summarization of potential solutions.

I’d add as a further ‘summary’ that most people seem to want a simple, single-aspect change as a ‘solution’. But simple changes won’t solve complex problems. And all the ‘simple’ solutions proposed here and elsewhere for wardecs have significant issues.

In all truth, as far as ‘simple’ solutions go, CCP’s notion of tying wardecs to structures is a pretty good one. It means every corp has the option to opt in or opt out of wars. Nobody is left in the cold for ‘feature’ access, because somebody somewhere will be running structures with the features they need. And structures plus Quantum cores means there’s at least some potential benefit to wardec structure bashes.

If CCP isn’t going to address core issues (like, defenders have virtually no reason to participate in a war), then really they’re probably best off just leaving it as it is. It’s not the best solution but it’s not that terrible either.

[Arthur_Aihaken]

@Kezrai_Charzai

Eh, sneaking your own and Gloria’s idea in as a ‘summary’ is a bit sketchy. First, you proposed 90 and 60 days respectively… which is nowhere near enough time for a corp to grow from ‘beginner’ to ‘decent sized capable of defense’. However it’s likely plenty of time to exploit a “start new corp, put up structures immediately, make ISK with it for X-1 ‘safe’ days, take structures down, repeat” cycle. At least get some critique on an idea before presenting it as a summarization of potential solutions.

Well, it’s not exactly an original idea - it’s kind of a twist on many other things that have been proposed. I’d like to think of it as having come about as a result of the collective discussion. So take the specifics of any “grace” aspect with a grain of salt; it’s more the concept than anything else, ie:

• Should corporations be eligible for wardecs immediately upon placing a structure?
• Should corporations have some sort of breathing/recovery period after losing a war?

I believe the majority of participants in this discussion would agree that these are reasonable questions.

[Gloria_Exercitus]

@Arthur_Aihaken

In the absence of ‘data’ (who knows when or if that will ever emerge), let’s assume it happens - but less frequently than it did under the old system. So probably still an issue to some extent - but not as nearly abusive as it once was.

Well, I can go by what I have myself experienced. Firstly there are fewer structures to bash anyway, precisely because a lot of the old abandoned ones got bashed. I did see some WM data on this but its not mine to release. Suffice to say that in my experience ( and going by memory, not the most reliable tool ) about 10-15% of structures bashed were already abandoned.

There were also cases of obviously quite rich corps simply not defending. For example I recall one incident where we showed up and there were 7 Paladins parked outside the station…and they all just left and let us get on with it. Each Paladin was probably worth more than the station.

It’s really a very mixed bag…ranging all the way from rather boring cases of no defenders on an abandoned structure, right up to 2000 people in a system with massive battles. The latter is the rarest of all…and is ideally what one wants more of.

[Arthur_Aihaken]

It should be pointed out that CCP has a history of implementing a change, giving numerous assurances that it will be “monitored” for future adjustments and then ignoring it for half a decade or more - during which time it tends to get abused to the 9th degree.

[Arthur_Aihaken]

Just a side note: if you watched (and apologies in-advance for 60 minutes of your life that you won’t be getting back) the dev/roadmap video for 2025, the only thing you’ll be able to take away from it is “2025 - more of the same from 2024”.

There are so many things in this game that could be addressed with minimal development effort and commitment - but I don’t think it’s in the cards. This includes wardecs. I don’t even know how much development is being focused on EVE these days vs. Vanguard or Frontier.

Basically if it’s not broken (and sometimes even if it is), as long as lot of players aren’t complaining or cancelling their subscription in protest - it’s unlikely to see any attention.

We may have a better CSM this year (maybe the best makeup it’s been in quite some time), but I guarantee that null-sec, Pochven and wormhole space (if only to leave the f**k alone) are going to be the highest priorities. Maybe a token effort for low-sec. I don’t think high-sec is even on the radar outside of taxes and trading.

[Kezrai_Charzai]

@Glenduil

You can say, “I removed the structures as a requirement of war” all you want, but clearly you didn’t.

No, you really aren’t getting it. You can both defend and declare wars without a structure. That means structures are removed as a requirement. You can also place a single limited structure without being war-eligible, therefore that structure is also not a requirement.

If your corp chooses to place a fully functional freely positioned structure then of course it has to become war-eligible because all such structures need to be removable. Otherwise there would be massive abuse. But an option is not a requirement.

@Glenduil

If structures weren’t a requirement for war decing, then every corp would be eligible even without them or there would be another requirement (size perhaps) and those that were not large enough would be able to build a fully functional quantum core powered structure without being eligible.

That’s how that works.

No, that’s really not. Structures literally and simply are not a requirement for either attackers or defenders. Structures are not a requirement for corps beyond a certain size, because corps like Safety. or CODE. with hundreds of ganker members should be valid targets and not simply able to hide behind Concord protection.

And as said, the limitations on the single structure probably remove any need to make them eligible, since they can’t be used to interfere with other gameplay (as far as I can see). However, if and only if someone found a way to abuse those positioning limits, then it’s still possible to create options to deal with it.

But heck, tell you what… remove those. Remove “corps beyond size X” (because clearly you’re happy with ganker/griefer corps of any size). And remove the 1 free limited structure. I only added those because other people in the thread mentioned them, and I was trying to incorporate as many people’s valid ideas as possible. And because they give options for more gameplay, not less.

So, remove Size X and Limited structure. They were frills anyway. All you have left is structures make you war eligible because they need to be removable. Which is exactly what we have now, only my proposal adds multiple viable options on top of that.

I’ve stressed many times that better solutions require giving more gameplay options and viable ones to players, not taking them away.

You appear to be totally hung up on structures for some reason, not sure why. They’re only a quite recent addition to wardecs. And your own preference appears to be simply “make structures cheap and easily disposable” for some reason, which has consequences for the entire game, not just high sec.

But consider that what CCP actually asked for, the only thing they asked for, was how to make wars less extremely one-sided, and how to make it so defenders have a reason to remain active during a war (two sides of the same coin, really).

Disposable structures does nothing for either side of that coin.

[Glenduil]

@Kezrai_Charzai

No, you really aren’t getting it. You can both defend and declare wars without a structure. That means structures are removed as a requirement. You can also place a single limited structure without being war-eligible, therefore that structure is also not a requirement.

You changed it so it wasn’t the only requirement, but it is still a requirement.

Had you said, “I removed it from being the ONLY requirement” then you’d have been correct. But if you’re forced into posting a WIB just for placing a quntum core into a structure then clearly it is still one of the requirements.

Details matter. Again- this is your proposal so will you please stop accusing me of being an idiot for discussing it? If you are unhappy with it, maybe you should do what you said you did and completely remove structures from the war dec system. Just remove them entirely. Allow a 10 member corp to own a structure in your proposal with a fully functional quantum core without being forced to post a WIB. THAT would have been in line with your continued claims against any discussion I attempt to have on this matter.

Detailed and easy to read example of your claims:

10 member corp- 1 month old
Buys citadel (or builds)
Installs fully functional Quantum core
Builds Athanor.
Installs fully functional quantum core
Does not have to post WIB
Is not eligible for war dec.
Can moon mine in peace with the exception of suicide gankers.

Reality of your claim:

10 member corp- 1 month old
Buys citadel (or builds)
Installs fully functional Quantum core
Builds Athanor.
Installs fully functional quantum core
Required to post WIB and can be subject to War Dec.

[Kezrai_Charzai]

@Glenduil

this is your proposal so will you please stop accusing me of being an idiot for discussing it?

Well, first I’m pretty sure I didn’t call you an idiot anywhere. However, there’s a difference between discussing my actual proposal, and discussing the way you’ve misinterpreted it to suit your own preoccupation.

You don’t appear to understand the distinction between required vs. optional choices. I won’t argue this further, you’ve obviously got an issue about structures. Structures are not a requirement. They are an optional provision because fully functional fully positional structures need to have a removal mechanism.

It’s easily possible for either attackers or defenders to declare, wage, and win wars without either side having a structure. That means they’re not a requirement. It’s as simple as that.

If you have a valid proposal that addresses actual issues (eg. defender participation, or levelling the small/large corp gap) that involves corps having invulnerable, unremovable structures, then please present it for discussion. Otherwise placing a full structure in space means it needs to be attackable.

Edit: and seriously, you’re trying to shoot down a proposal that’s intended to show there are multiple ways to give multiple players multiple options for dealing with wars… because the word “only” was missing? Maybe take those structure-blinders off and consider the bigger issues with wardecs:

• Non-PvP corps can’t defend structures against structure-bashing corps. Especially when CCP is specifically trying to make structure-bashing easier, faster, and more profitable.
• Defender corps have no reason to participate in wars, because there’s nothing to gain from it. So they corp hop, or log out, or use holding corps. All of which sorta work, but don’t actually lead to more in-game activity or contests between corps. They just lead to war-farmers and war-evaders, which is what we’ve always had.
• Players are more active in games where they have more choices and more rewarding actions they can take. My proposal adds choices and rewards to the game. 90% of everything else here is all about taking actions and choices away.

As I said before, my proposal is an example to show that actions and options can be added, rather than removed. None of those specific options are locked in stone, they can all be edited changed removed or whatever. But the concept of giving players more things they can do to achieve their own goals is the important thing. Not hairsplitting over the meaning of single words.

[Jabali_Javee]

Well, why fully enlisted militia corporations need a station to wardec the corporations that have structures? That’s crazy

[Gloria_Exercitus]

@Kezrai_Charzai

Defender corps have no reason to participate in wars, because there’s nothing to gain from it

You are pushing certain a priori assumptions…

1. Participation : There’s an implicit assumption in your model of things that ‘participation’ means active engagement…which you imply is missing. However, surely the defending corp has already participated simply by the act of making themselves war eligible…a participatory choice without which there could be no war.

2. Gain : It’s never really explained why they should gain specifically from war. As with the participation bit, any ‘gain’ is surely something the corp had in mind as the reason for setting up a structure in the first place…outside of the context of war. I doubt the motive was ever one of ’ lets make ourselves war eligible so we can gain something '. That’s not to say they can’t gain from war…but it’s never explained why it is something they should expect.