Yeah, it would allow war-immune highsec structures. vOv
The current system is gonna get WORSE, too.
If you have to designate a structure in highsec as your ‘War HQ’, what if Goons own no structures in HS? How do you declare war on them?
Defenders don’t need a war HQ, in fact they don’t have one at all.
War eligibility for the defender is exactly as it is right now.
Only the attacker needs an HQ.
1 Like
Concord them when they come into empire! lol, but good point here. Very good point.
Ok, fair point. But then why should owning structures not in highsec give war eligibility?
1 Like
The system doesn’t need to be to merge all the wars into sides. The system could be that A and B are allies in a war against C, while D is also at war with C but not an ally of A and B.
There just needs to be a system that eliminates neutral logi while allowing alliances to provide mutual assistance in a war.
Also good point. Because CCP sayeth it is a cost for the benefit of owning structures even if they are not in high?
And yes, you could just alt corp all your high sec logistics. I know.
Because goons need decs too!
Ok, come up with a system that is easy to understand when you include D also having a war with E, E having a war with F, and F having a war with A all at the same time.
That doesn’t have loop holes in it you can drive a titan through. Because that’s what we’ve been trying to do.
Right, but what happens when A and B have been wardec’d by C. D is at war with A, but comes in as an ally of B.
Now all 4 are on-grid.
Anyone have a picture board??? I need pictures to follow now. I really wish I had a white board to write on.
Maybe there is a restriction when you ally that prevents a group from accepting assistance if an ally is already at war with the group offering.
A, B and D should be able to rep each other as long as they are fighting C.
Easy, they can’t join a war coalition if they have wars with one of the members. D and A would have to mutually drop the war before D could join the war coalition. I don’t see the need to make the system convoluted to account for players being bad at diplomacy.
(Actual diagram of the wardecs in Thebeka in December - credit @Kalaratiri )
2 Likes
ok, so not a ‘war coalition’. D just declares war on C, as well as B.
Yea. Perfect example why this should be rethought. And the right time should be taken on it for the right solution to this. This neutral logi.
A blanket removal is a caveman’s response to an issue that has been around since before he figured out fire.
OHHH now when riot goes suspect and mission runner attacks him whats up the the alt logi then? Can riot get some reps?
Then it would be the same as the current proposal where remote assistance across alliances gets you CONCORDOKKENED.
I have little hope that CCP will listen to what I proposed, but I have zero hope that they’d spend the time doing a complex system which would allow for “A and B have been wardec’d by C. D is at war with A, but comes in as an ally of B”.
I don’t think the system for it needs to be all that complex, as long as the war is treated as a ledger. You can’t be allied with someone who’s allied with your enemy. You want to get into that level of complexity… get outta highsec.
1 Like
And this is the down fall of the game. Because this screws up suspects now too. And new players don’t in three days fly out to null sec and join the goons that already don’t have friends there. They hang around in high sec do missions after the career agents and chill until they stumble upon bombers bar or talk to some guys mining ice etc.
1 Like
I’m not sure what your point is exactly.