Devblog: War Declaration Changes - The War Adjacent to Christmas


(Zeus Maximo) #308

The last 3rd of the dev blog discusses the new ability to reject structure transfers. I’m unsure if you read more than the title.

(Lord Xiskogen) #309

That being said and understood, some corporations are currently already being violated in this manner for preparations for the changes. What about the structures said corporations received 10 days prior to the changes? Will they get a 2nd chance? Or will they have to spend the better of 2 months trying to roll into a random WH with protectors, and then having to pay a large sum for mercs to get in and do their bidding?

(Lord Xiskogen) #310

I mean, it has already happend, corporations marmite/pirate really like to Wardec has been given structures for the preparations of the changes.

(Dal Shooth) #311

I think what you are describing should be addressed by CCP in some manner.

EDIT: I guess CCP should have announced and released the structure transfer setting mechanic first then announced the wardec changes after. lol

(Saeger1737) #312

The game is a pvp sandbox, applying limitations to the sandbox aspect makes it a linear game that becomes boring

(Geo Eclipse Oksaras) #313

Sometimes things change to have to make things better. Would you rather have the game stay as it is, with only bittervets for the next 3 years and the game close down? or find ways to get new players into the game and stay in the game and not leave, and have the game around another 15 years?

(Rina Cotte) #314


The war deck system was built for empire or low sec. This system will fail if the alliance or corps can place them in deep null. The fact they can spam useless stru in space. I’m asking we change this system over to flag stru in empire. The alliance or Corp can pick what stru they want to flag stru and they only get one of them. They will force the war decks to defend or attack.

This could get the attacker a chance to knock out a war decker.

Other wise we will get this… cons
Alliance or corps can place stru in deep space and pay rental fee.
Spam more useless stru to give weeks of endless reinforce game.

(Narcissist X) #315

I think the changes are a step in the direction for player retention. Social/Smaller corps that don’t want to participate in PVP will no longer have to log off for a week.

I know EVE is risk/reward. The risk to anchor a structure seems like it will become to high for a social/small corp to do so in Hi-Sec after this change.

How about creating a new Upwell Structure that would be immune to wars. This structure would have 0 defense, 0 slots, and 0 service slots. Declare it your Home Base for your corp and only 1 would be allowed per corp. All you could do from this structure would be, character editor, insurance, dock, repair, item hanger, and corp hanger. There would be no access list and only corp members could dock in this structure. To keep the structure online, you will have to fuel it. If the structure runs out of fuel, you have 24 hours to refuel, if not fueled in the grace period, then the corp could be war decked and the structure will never be allowed to be refueled. This structure would have no shield and armor, only structure with maybe 500,000 HP. There would be 0 damage cap and no way to save the structure after the 24 hour grace period. There would be 0 asset safety for these structures once a war is active. Players could still dock and remove their assets during a pending/active war. The corp would not be able to anchor another structure like this until the war is over and their current structure is destroyed or taken down and redeployed. Unanchoring would be possible at anytime, but there would be a 3-7 day wait to scoop it up. These structures would only be allowed in Hi, Low or Null Sec. So WH corps could not use them for eviction staging. Ship docking restrictions would be limited to what the current small citadels allow.

Just a thought to still give the social/smaller corp a way to have some ownership and still contribute to the economy. Interested in hearing thoughts on this.

(Malakai Asamov) #316

The warning when you anchor your first structure could be a bit more explicit about what a “formal war declaration” means as a new player may not have come across this term before. ie “A formal war declaration means your corporation and alliance structures and spaceships can be attacked in any space without penalty by those listed in the war declaration.”

Good stuff otherwise!

(Rina Cotte) #317

Well the idea is good. But This could never change, there no safe sand box on eve online. If someone shoots your stuff then put other up or move on.

(Dal Shooth) #318

You’ve just described a dumbed down NPC station that can be destroyed. Why wouldn’t this corp just use a NPC station instead as it cant be blown up and does everything you just described?

(Sugar Smacks) #319

I find it rather telling that Reddit, which is usually most critical of CCP and their practices is almost universally happy with this change and the perceived effect it will have on EvE.

In fact for every angry complainer there is at least 10 people who have positive things to say about it.

Sure there are going to be angry people with every change, but this change has many less angry people than normal.

(Narcissist X) #320

Mainly for the ownership part. Make corps that don’t own these structures have higher fees/taxes for using NPC stations.

(Litsea Reticulata) #321

It took a long time for CCP to accept and finally act on the toxic state that was war declarations, there is some hope ganking might be bathed in cleansing light too.

(Dal Shooth) #322

So this is the actual point. We want people that are immune to wardecs to have to pay a penalty for lack of risk through taxes and fees. In my opinion, now that these changes are rolling out, they should increase the taxes and fees in NPC station to encourage players to put down structures, and also help balance out the impact these players will have on the market.

EDIT: This does not address players using alt-corp structures with 0 taxes to continue immunity when mining and salvaging in HS. EDIT2: Well other than blowing that structure up.

(Litsea Reticulata) #323

This change has been long over due and is very welcome. However, I’m holding off on re-subscribing until I am confident there will be no backflip in ‘future’ iterations that result in the same demographic of the player base being able to engage in the same toxic behaviours as existed previously.

(Narcissist X) #324

If making the taxes high enough to make players want to take the risk to use the structures I described, would this be acceptable? So they could pay 100 mil a month in fuel for this structure, maybe give them NPC reprocessing percentage then in their structure or pay 250 mil a month to a Faction, then they would have access to all NPC stations within that faction. Make Industry taxes higher or a negative penalty to materials, this would make them want to anchor an industrial complex maybe. Numbers were just used as an example. Just thinking of ways to not allow 100% immunity to those corps and forcing at least a little bit of risk to them.

(Litsea Reticulata) #325

The system was abused by the few for their own gain. Measures have been taken to remedy the abuse. Those who feel poorly at this stage should look in the mirror to find who to blame, not fingerpoint at CCP.

(Litsea Reticulata) #326

High security space should never have been allowed to mine moons in the first place. :stuck_out_tongue:

(Dal Shooth) #327

In what you’re describing, having the penalties in place would be acceptable. While I appreciate your forward thinking, I’m just not seeing the benefit of creating a new anchorable structure that acts as an HQ, when you can do the same things in structures already in game ready for use.

I personally like the on/off switch. You want to drop a structure to use outside of faction control, you open yourself up to the capsuleer intervention.

I’d like to see numbers a few months from now on how many corps don’t have anchored structures.