I spoke to a lot of solo small gang war deckers around that period, some were posting on the forums about the lack of targets, I at the time questioned their target selection. So what makes you different to the people who told me that they had no content from their multiple war decs. I pointed out that it is likely your superior target selection.
OK, I write things in a rush at times.
WHat I am saying is that there had been a move towards hub/pipe hunters before the watch list change, and that the watch list removal killed off those that were still doing it apart from a few people.
Only if you decide to spend all your time in an NPC corp previously, which is not a good idea if you want to stay in the game long term.
In effect Upwell Structures are needed for more advanced play, like changing seamlessly into a better mission clone, doing indy. There is a value and you move to a more serious committed play by using them.
There are many bad CEOās however can you honestly say that the wrong decision for them being so out gunned and out skilled was to not log in at all.
There are good reasons to have structures, I think there will be enough that want structures, however I am not so sure that structures will survive long going forward.
Me too, but I play to be hard to kill and to me the structures are too easyā¦
I donāt think there should be a suspect flag for that.
I think it is fine as it is, however I would suggest creating a limited type of war dec possibility for entities that do not have a structure with limitations that do not make it a total drag for the defender.
You werenāt doing highsec wardecs at the timeā¦ what you think, aka your opinion, is totally oblivios and irrelevant to that fact that all the hunter groups went bye bye with the watchlist.
Your posts reek of absolute ignorance when it comes to wardecs, you speak of it like you were in one of the many hunting corps, yet you werenāt even close to any of it
Why are you trying to engage with someone who you falsely accused of harassment. You are stalking me and I ask you again to stop. There is no discussion or debate with you, all you want to do is point score and I have no respect or interest in anything you think or say.
I have always said that I was not a war decker, that you keep telling me something that I always said I was not, says everything about you and your need to score senseless inane points.
I am not a war decker, I joined the war dec discord as someone who spent a lot of time analysing war deckers and with a viewpoint on the defenders, I told the people there including yourself that was what I was and what I get back is:
And this:
I would like you to go and check how many times I have done the @ CCP falcon on you, which is zero and you have done that to me at least four times. The last one was a desperate attempt to get me a forum ban.
How many times do I have to tell you that I am not a war decker for it to sink in and to keep telling me that I am not a war decker is just really odd. So if that is the pinnacle of your argument thenā¦ Well what can I say, I am not a war decker, I never have been and I have never claimed to be a war decker.
PS Falcon suggested that we shoot each other in game, I am in Khafis, feel free.
I have no structures yet and i want to declare a war - what is the cheapest way to do it for me? What structure i need to deploy - mobile depot? Maybe secure container?
All Upwell Structures (including Upwell FLEX structures)
* Starbase Control Towers
* Player-owned Customs Offices
* Sovereignty Structures (Infrastructure Hubs and Territorial Control Units)
If you can find an unclaimed planet, Player Owned Customs Office (POCO) may be your cheapest option. If you can find an unclaimed moon, a small control tower. After that, a Raitaru engineering complex is probably the least expensive option.
If you are unable to afford any of these, contact me with an in game mail and I will see if I can point you towards some additional assistance.
Thereās a one control tower per moon limit. If there is already a control tower at that moon, you will be unable to place your own until it is destroyed or unanchored by the owner. Athanors do not count. An Athanor can be placed at the moon mining beacon and coexist with a control tower, even if the owners are totally separate (or hostile to one another).
I donāt mind at all the new wardec system. I do mind however that as a corp that likes to dec others you only have to get a small tower for like 100m, anchor it somewhere far off and no need to have it online.
I think the requirement shouldnāt be just having a structure in space, it should be an ONLINE structure in space.
If you get decced and you decide to clear out the fuel of the tower to avoid the dec then bad luck, it has a week or maybe 2 cooldown period in which the wardec goes through as intended.
If you want to dec you have to make sure your tower is online aswel. If you decide to remove the fuel your cooldown period in which your wardecs are active is much shorter since you donāt intend to put too much effort into keeping your decās alive. You then have 2 days left to fight in your wars and when you want to restart your tower you get either a cooldown period in which you canāt dec or a period in which you cant take the tower offline.
Risk vs Reward should work both ways, not just in favor of certain playstyles.
If there are any groups taking advantage of the wardec imbalance you suggest exists to get wealthy without putting themselves at risk, Iād like to hear about them. A few concrete examples of wardeccing groups running rampant without online structures would greatly assist in proving your point.
So you can pull the fuel to cancel a wardec and save your structuresā¦ And no one can wardec to.clean offline structures up.
That or the wardec is already a week long so it makes no difference.
Which means itās not worth making a distinction because itās the same length either way.
Nope, the thing is that if you get wardecced that as soon as the wardec is in effect the wardec will last 2 weeks minimal even if the corp that got decced pulls all fuel.
If you canāt kill off an offline stucture in 2 weeks you lack in many ways.
As a wardeccer yourself you should have atleast an online tower so anchoring a tower somewhere in wife off Minmatar space and then head on over a load of jumps to caldari space is also kinda in favor of the wardeccers, isnāt it?
Because production, engineering, mining corps put their towers and structures up to where their base of activity is.
A deccer can easy obtain the base of operations and eventual range of operations where as a corp that getās decced will have thousands of systems to scan down to hopefully find an anchored structure of the wardeccer.
Thus is the current setup of the wardec system in great favor again of the agressors.
If CCP would give locator agents also the option to find locations of targets online structures the playingfield would be a tad less in favor of the agressors and the ācarebearsā would be able to maybe form up and go after the structure of the agressor aswel.
Since it is high sec I am mainly talking about I would reckon that Concord and also the Empires themselves would have an outstanding registration of all structures in their collective space.
The new wardec system wont allow you to wardec without having a structure in space.
However you can set it up in some backwater system in any empire without it having to be online and then move your agression to a whole other empire.
Whereas a production, research or mining corp tends to have their structure online if they intend to use it as base of operation. They most likely also be playing in said system or atleast in the neighbourhood of said system.
So where is the risk vs reward for both parties?
As agressive corp who wants to put out as many wardecs as they feel there is not really much risk. Nor is there much work because they only have to anchor a small tower a load of jumps away to be able to wardec.
The chance their tower getās probed down is virtually nill since their intended victims are 20+ jumps away, so howmuch chance is there to get their tower spotted?
As I already said, there should also be some risk for the wardeccers.
Since I can use a locator agent to find a pilots location then why canāt I also find atleast the system in which their corp has a structure in space?
This opens up the possebility that a group of ācarebearsā fleets up to try to bring the fight to the agressors front door.
Or if they are totally not into shooting stuff but good at making ISK they could hire in another group to do the structure shooting.
This would certainly decrease the number of rampant wardecs with totally no kills and also open up the risk vs reward for both parties to a more extensive level.
If pulling fuel under your proposal a war would still last 2 weeks, then itās pointless having it care about a structure being fueled or not. Since a war only lasts a week till it needs renewal anyway.
Also how will you kill offline structures if you canāt wardec the corp holding them.
You are adding in complications that give no benefit to the system and add a whole lot of work arounds needed.
If a corp has an active tower and decides to pull the fuel from the tower there is no need to renew the wardec after one week. There is automaticly a week added due to pulling the fuel.
Add to that the option to use locator agents to find in which system(s) a corp has structures in space just like you can find pilots locations and there willl be a lot more active wars than the thousands in which not a single ISK getās lost due to destruction.
If you use the locator agent system for structures aswel then you could remove the whole not war eligeable system.
But as the system is atm itās hugely in favor of a certain playstyle and the risk vs reward isnāt even on the same table.
Your idea for fuel does nothing to change any of this.
Now adding structures to locator agents might have a place. It would have to be āfind the nearestā otherwise if it found all structures it would be too good. That idea is worth following.
I have no problem with being able to locate an aggressorās structures, but I doubt this would actually change much. Carebears donāt want to impose risk, and therefore look to artificial systems to impose that risk rather than present it themselves. I do not believe that allowing the defender to know the location of their aggressorās base would actually satisfy any defender who would raise a complaint in the first place, but I grant it should be knowable if structures are tied to war mechanics.
Ignoring for the moment that a wardec costs isk, it is impossible to wage war without committing, and thereby risking, some assets to a location occupied by your opponent. Attackers must risk assets to press the war they start if they want their reward, other than, I suppose, the intimidation factor of an active wardec.
Ok, take out the fuel idea and insert the āfind nearest structureā
That way you increase the risk a bit more for the deccer and you give the decced one several options.
Fleet and gear up, move over and try to gank that structure.
Cash up, find a merc group that wants to go after the structure for a price.
Do some shop spinning in an NPC station while your structure getās taken out.
