At least you could have put some effort in to your trolling OP. 
1 Like
I take it you are a âglass is half fullâ type of personâŚ
1 Like
full of what? not understand
He meant you are opmistic person
1 Like
There is no 100% safe, unless youâre in a station. Even then someone can trade scam you⌠This will not eliminate war in high sec. There are plenty of corps, big and small, that have structures. They will not be protected. And of course, thereâs always uedama. I wonder if .4 space is safer than Uedama. Anyone else wonder that?
Canât say that I am safe even in the station. I have sold items almost for free due to mistakes. One canât hide from his own stupidity. 
Iâve lost more due to trading than fighting. Stations can be very dangerous!
Now, on the topic. High sec will never be safe, but this might help newbros and industrialists, who want to avoid PvP for the most part. Ganking is another topic for another time.
Thanks.
Please donât stop!
Heh, talking about different things.
Not saying you are wrong. I am saying that most undeccable corps, independent of size, will have no Might behind them. Those who ârise above pleb stateâ and go deccable will likely have, but the vastmajority wonât.
Thatâs what i meant. Thereâs people who complain about corps with a hundred people, undeccable, but I donât see how thatâs a problem, as those who canât be decced likely canât force their will onto anyone anyway. Might makes Right after all.
My question re Alliances was different to what you answered to. Guess I need to be more detailed? I am aware that alliances without structures can not be decced, but I am questioning the need for undeccable alliances due to the fact that corps combining into alliances are higher level social structures for advanced folks.
There stands to reason that itâs above what should be deemed âground levelâ.
There stands to reason that people who group up in such a significant way should already be able to defend themselves due to the fact that theyâre grouping up into an alliance.
You disagree. Why?
1 Like
I wish theyâd allowed corporations without structures to declare war, too. It should be possible for corporations without assets in space to attack those who posses such assets. The problem that these changes are trying to fix never had anything to do with a lack of symmetry in eligibility, but only eligibility itself. Thus introducing this symmetry is perhaps based on a wish for beauty or an ideal or the thought of perfectionism, but it really needs a practical demand first. This is simply put taking it one step too far.
One side effect will be that poor corporations cannot âpunch upwardsâ, but will have to put something into space first. And this will end up getting metaâd to oblivion, with players putting up the cheapest possible structure in the remotest locations, and CCP needing to find counters to this, because there will simply never be any real symmetry, but some will always have more assets in space than others. Itâs only silly to demand 1 structure for declaring war, and not 0, when targets can have N structures.
2 Likes
This is a good start to reduce grief deccing, but it doesnât solve the main problem.
The main problem is defensive war decs generation zero content. You canât do your regular activities because you have a grief dec, but when you bring the fight to grief deccers, they just shrug and dock up.
There is a clear lack of risk for the attacker. Before they could go completely risk-free, now they need to rent a single poco somewhere in the boonies of Delve, and that is their only risk?
A structure for grief deccing must be accessible and locatable. My possible suggestion would be limiting the amount of jumps attacker structure can be from nearest defender structure to be war-eligible.
P.S. I still consider that fanfest presentation, where people were asked if grief deccing is a problem, and HALF the audience raised their hands only to be told off is one of the biggest ââ â â â youâ from CCP moments in eve history. Finally this mistake is getting addressed, but in a rather lame manner. Go all the way, CCP!
3 Likes
That presentation wasnât about wardecs, it was about ganking; which is something entirely different.
1 Like
II have honest questions:
- Are there things in a citadel you can only do if you are in the same corp/alliance?
- Is it possible to transfer a citadel or poco during war to another corp without involving that corp in the war?
The first sentence of what you quoted indicates Kina feels the same penalty should apply to NPC corps.
Just to have it said: weâre not in the habit of letting people we donât trust ârentâ structures in Delve. And we donât trust anyone.
Well, a few reasons.
First, I just donât see it likely. At that level of sophistication, as you noted, youâre unlikely to see folks willing to forgo owning infrastructure just for the sake of not being war decced. Somebody is going to want to expand their holdings and that will invariably result in everybody getting decced.
Second, in the end, size and scale doesnât really matter - the NPC corps have tens of thousands of characters in them. Size doesnât mean sophistication. So even if you have a couple of these groups together flying an alliance tag, they can still be relatively new.
I just donât think itâs going to be that big of a deal in the handful of months that this change is the only change to war decs.
2 Likes
Fact of the matter is that Highsec wardec alliances have always been the bottom of the barrel as far as EVE PVP goes. This was as true of Privateers in 2007 as it is today. Anyone who disagrees really doesnât have anything valuble to add to this discussion or the game quite frankly. All it does is keep the playerbase on a steady decline.
This change hits the nail on the head perfectly in terms of what it needs to accomplish, which is to limit PVP in highsec around stuff that actually matters. Itâs years overdue tbh.
Keep your structures out of your corp/ally and youâre fine as far as getting wardecced is concerned. This is unrealistic for larger nullsec entities but something perfectly viable for your 5 friends who started eve last wek.
6 Likes
I do understand the idea of these war changes, as they are attempting to reflect some form of battle lines. By needing war decks to have a structure attached to it means you know they at least operate somewhere. Meaning you can either attack the system directly or control your foes traffic to it.
But i will say this does negatively impact those that deal with more gank style play. As if a corp just feels they want to gank and use the current AI stations to store their ships and goods and just roam for kills like a normal pirate, but this would prevent their victims from war declaring back in order to clear the gank corp out. And while the suspect and criminal timers exist, a war dec would be used if they are a persistent threat. (Also im mostly referring to high and low sec with this idea, as thats where i currently spend most of my time)
Granted im a pretty new player and thus i could be very wrong about this. If someone could fill me in on some insight it would be greatly appreciated.
- No. If the owner of the citadel gives you that level of access, you can do anything he can with the only exceptions being unanchoring or transfering the citadel.
- Structures cannot be transfered under a pending or active wardec.
âŚVote for Pedro?
Sorry, couldnât resist 
And actually, yes, yes I would.
2 Likes
Will the possibility of leaving the corporation, an active war faith, be removed?