Structures cannot be moved when there is a current war going on. and what is your position in your corp, that you say is preventing you from doing anything? Roles in corps have nothing to do with wars, but with back end stuff.
As if they canāt already do this through other means. And how often do small entities actually have that kind of protection? I canāt say that Iāve ever seen a small corp receive help from a much larger one that isnāt already at war with the wardeccer.
I think this was proposed before but why not require the attackers to have a citadel in the same region as the defenders. That way both sides have easily accessible targets.
1 Like
I exist in corp. Thatās about the extent of my role, and more than enough for me. I have 0 decision-making abilities, so I canāt turn a structure into a war/alliance. Suits me fine. Some people just seem to think I have to have roles or something.
Iām not in a game to have responsibilities 
on the changes so far @CCP_Falcon
Thereās some āissuesā but Iām sure theyāll get patched out in short order.
most corps iāve seen, require everybody to fleet up if they have the available shipsā¦ When I was in null, in just my VNI, we all went to destroy pocoās or fight neutsā¦ and I wasnāt anything important in that corp other than a miner.
With regards to the removal of neutral assistanceā¦
If I am jetcan mining and someone comes and steals my oreā¦
He gets a suspect timer.
If I engage him with my procurer, we get a limited engagement.
Whilst he has a suspect timer active, and a limited engagementā¦ does this mean that anyone ārepairingā or helping himā¦ will face the wrath of CONCORD??? 
Or is the change only affecting repairing people that are involved in PVP on the basis of a war??
Thanks.
Removal of neutral assistance
Under current mechanics, if a neutral character applies a remote assistance module (such as a remote repairer) to another character they can receive a suspect flag if their target meets all of the following conditions:
- is involved in a war (including normal wars or FW)
- does not share a corp/alliance (or FW side if the war in question is the FW war) with the assistor
- is engaged in PVP (has a capsuleer logoff timer)
How often? I mean, not for nothing, but forcing everyone to drop everything and join every fleet is just asking to push people away. I think Karmafleetās requirements is ā3 strategic fleets in 3 monthsā?
Wouldnāt this be prevented by the fact that you canāt join another corp for a week after leaving a corp thatās at war?
Maybe that could be extended to not be able join a corp that has an active or pending war with a corp that your old corp is attacking so you canāt hop corps and attack the same people.
I think the thing I find most funny about the neutral logi complaints is that they were never immune to being shot. You had to wait until they repped someone and especially when cap chains are employed they go flashy anyway, in the case of cap chaining they all go flashy. If you get a suspect tag anyone can shoot you even randos looking for easy kills who have nothing to do with anyone. Now that wonāt be a thing and you either have all your friends join your corp/alliance or youāre on your own. Hence its safer for the attackers because now its just the war targets that pose a threat.
1 Like
If he is involved in any active war (not necessarily against the person heās fighting at that moment), then yes.
1 Like
Like most of the changes, but wish they would amend the War HQ requirement such that only the lowest level Upwell structures qualify. Since most large corps will either create a structure in their most secure system or are large enough to establish something like a Keepstar, the chances of a smaller decced corp making a dent in the aggressors shields, let alone threatening the structure, is highly unlikely. Make a group feel that they have even a small chance, they might engage. Have a target untouchable or at least indestructible and the defending corp will remain logged off.
Definately a strong start in improving the War Dec mechanics, but careful, yet prompt, tweaking will be needed.
300b to drop on the table and dare the whole game to cut it offā¦ thatās not all that common.
Thatās like a day in Delve? 
Ok, insert Fortizer instead and you get my concern.
So because they canāt fight a 40,000 member alliance, the deck should be further stacked against them?
Upon further consideration, I offer one further suggestion:
War HQ structures should have a shorter timer cycle than other structures for one simple reason:
If the aggressor is going after a structure, the defender has 0 incentive to go after the HQ if popping it will not save their own structure.
If you want to incentivize fighting back, going after the structure MUST be capable of saving a structure that is RFed immediately in the war.
1 Like
While I agree with the concept, I find that the groups that would suffer are the ones that canāt field X number of dudes at any given time (the exact reason that reinforcement windows exist). An aggressor should not be limited to a larger party.
Thanks for digging that out! The thread was already so big by the time that I got here, that reading it all was quite daunting!
So on another noteā¦ people coming to try to save miners or haulers from being ganked need to be careful about the āinnocentā person they are trying to save. I see opportunities for ātrollingā here.
But well, there is always the āsafetyā that should save peopleā¦ if they use it intelligently.
If there is ongoing repairing, for example repairing a freighter that is being ganked etcā¦ and in the middle of the repairing a war is declared (or goes active), am I going to be looking at the wrong end of CONCORD?
If you have your safety on green or yellow then your reps should shut off when the war goes active.
1 Like
So your best bet of assuring that you are always able to be repaired if you end up in trouble (eg ganks) is to stay in an NPC corporation or a war ineligible corporationā¦