Not really, but they’d have more of a chance in highsec. The question was ‘why does it have to be in highsec?’ and the answer is pretty simple: it’s the only place where the larger group can’t drop caps on you, and the smaller group is guaranteed to at least have access to the target system.
Then the issue is caps and power projection from larger alliances, not the war structures itself.
I’m pleased with these changes, especially the CONCORDing of neutral logi, as that’s been an issue that has been on the table for many, many years.
I’m also pleased that the War HQ idea has been fleshed out, as giving the defender a goal to achieve to “win” the war has been a fundamental part of all of the ideas I’ve pitched about war dec changes over the last year. I’m glad to see that made it in.
I am also pleased to see the changes to the price of war decs, as that was a specific issue that was brought to me by the pro-war dec community as being something they wanted addressed, and the reduction in price for deccing some of the larger war targets should help off-set some of the changes they dislike, as well as increase their profitability, which they made clear in our roundtable was important to them.
I think this is a pretty good compromise system that provides both sides with something, and should encourage more pew pew and less docking up in the future.
Well, once you’re out of highsec, ‘larger alliances’ becomes purely a concern for the wardec itself, because in lowsec, anyone can shoot you. So let’s say you limit alliances to 100 people. Put it in lowsec. Ok, I bring members of all 300 Goonswarm alliances.
I appreciate you looking for ways to fit your ‘grr gons’ into this, but take us out of the equation. PIRAT wants to hit a 10-man corp in highsec. So they put their war HQ deep in Aridia. Or Stain. Or a C5 wormhole. How is that fair to the smaller group?
Will the War HQ stay the same over multiple wars or will you be able to declare a new war HQ for each war?
As if its the same HQ over multiple wars then thats a great thing. As then by destroying one target many wars are silenced from the war dec squads.
This is something we have discussed, but ultimately would prove much too complicated to track and convey correctly. From April onward you’ll need to be in the same corp or alliance to provide remote assistance in a war.
The war would always last as long as the reinforcement cycle of a high sec Upwell Structure so significantly longer than 2 days, but you are mostly correct, this change allows corporations and alliances an avenue for ending a war as a defender, and generally speaking, larger groups are going to find this an easier challenge than smaller ones.
Mercenaries would be an option in this case. generally the high sec restriction is there to prevent destroying the HQ from becoming a nigh on insurmountable challenge for a high sec group.
So while the war’s active, you can’t change it, but each war can have a different one, and each time the war ends, you can re-dec a new group and designate a new HQ.
Does that War HQ change also require allies who want to participate in a war to aid the defender to have such a structure?
You also do not need to simplify cost calculation, you need to make it cheaper to permanently keep huge groups under war while it is more expensive to keep small groups under war. That will solve many more problems than most of your convoluted but less-bad changes. Keep that 100M weekly cost, but reverse the initial cost. Huge groups do not need guarding from wars, they need to be wide open for dozens and dozens of wars against them. Smaller groups need to get a little better guarding so that people do not just yolo declare wars against them and instead have to identify a worthwhile target that justifies the cost.
That thing aside: I am positively surprised by the described changes.
@CCP_Lebowski - the devblog’s options for neutral assistance includes this line:
“2. does not share a corp/alliance (or FW side if the war in question is the FW war) with the assistor”
That would seem to indicate that if you’re on the same side in the militia, fighting against FW enemies, you’re ok in the war… but with the HQs being in highsec, what stops a group from declaring war on (for example) a group like Ushra’Khan, in the Minmatar Militia… and putting their WarHQ in Amarr Highsec, where MinMil can’t go?
Nothing. Hire mercs or leave milita vov
Reverse the initial cost and amp it up. It should be orders of magnitude more expensive for Goons to dec a 10-man corp than a 10-man corp to dec Goons.
There’s nothing to stop this specifically, you could also for example, war dec a corp with terrible standings to a faction, and put your HQ in their space, or put your HQ in a High Sec island. There are a few ways to make your HQ harder to kill for the defenders. They aren’t perfect, but as you can also always hire mercenaries or leave militias etc, we’re mostly alright with them.
Allies, like defenders, do not need a war HQ. they are only required to be war eligible.
Well, this all has the goals of “encouraging the sorts of wars that provide entertaining conflicts between corporations and alliances while reducing the number of situations where players experience a lack of viable choices or feel forced into avoiding joining player corporations entirely.”
But that problem amounts to discouraging conflict, or making players feel forced to giving up their preferred gameplay… or having someone else fight for them. I mean, you’re talking about FW corps. They want to fight.
‘Hi, CCP, we’re here to fight.’
‘Great! You can’t. Go hire someone else to play the game you wanted to play.’
Great to see some smart changes to what was effectively a tool for mass suicide ganking without the suicide in highsec. One possible change: consider granting a defending corp in a war a 2-3 week immunity from all wardecs if they ‘win’ the war by killing the War HQ. That gives many highsec carebear corps a real incentive to fight back. Of course, that immunity disappears if the corp itself declares war.
Looks good. I like the war HQ thingy, gives the defender a reason to go into the offensive and have an actual benefit for fighting back.
A nice idea in principle, but supremely exploitable with an alt corp I’m afraid.
With regards to the war dec UI overhaul: Please make it possible to drag a war from the actual war overview window. Oftentimes that huge war window hides my show info windows and that makes it harder to drag a specific war into a chat. It would be nice if you could click on the crossed swords in the war window and drag the war link into chats, mails, notes, whatnot.
And could bug fixes please also included that every kill I participated in generating is now counted in the war report and not just final blows? That would be very great. Although I can already see spaghetti code get in the way of that because a kill cannot be on 2 or more war reports simultaneously.
Counterpoint, allowing War HQs in high sec islands would bring a lot more activity to places like Solitude and the null sec travel pipes would be a sure fire conflict driver of merc corps trying to assault these regions.
and my sugestion ist stop mining afk in your belts! if you have enough mining power you simply mine the bad guy the roid away under his drones/lasers and call it done. you can even bump them or talk with them and as seen often in highsec they just give you a fee from the mined value.
**the problem with highsec moonmining are NOT the active players who “steal” from others. gater intel where are belts whan up and bring in ther fleets. **
the problem are the risk averse afk mining orcas who call all in these belts “my ore” and want suspect flag and protection from active players!