Will characters listed on the ACL also be included in the possible Wardec on the structure?
It doesn’t make sense to set NPC corp players etc. to suspect and allow alt corps to mine freely.
1 Like
While fixing the loopholes is great, the new system will cause other problems. For example, if a defender can’t join an alliance during a war, it will be impossible for a corp to leave one alliance, and join another alliance. The old alliance could just declare war on them forever (or until the corp removes all their structures). Wouldn’t have fixing the problems with the cooldown have fixed all the other loopholes as well?
Make it corp only and maybe you solve the problem, otherwise, you are just adding another abusable mechanic to the game.
Probably something so you can shoot friends or enemies in high sec for fun. Unlikely to be foul play. Or maybe a mercenary is hired to shoot you and you guys are bored and are interested in shooting people that week etc.
1 Like
So a corp lives in Null , or Low, or a Wormhole and now has to have a High sec base? How bout everyone comes to them? And if not why not? Is this Code/Goons/Wrecking Machine once again flexing their muscles? Or am I mistaken from what I have read.
I doubt any real life corp would actually move their whole base of operations to another part of space entirely.
It might make it harder to travel through unfriendly territory to actually get to the fight, but that is what war has always been about.
I think this will not be so good. Its inaccurate. Only very large corporations or those in large alliances can actually fund bases in both. Who wants to have to move to go and fight anyway? I would rather just dissolve it rather than all the trouble and expense and lose it anyway. You want to fight then bring it to me on my grounds. Not yours.
Only if you want to declare war in hisec, it is not exactly difficult to understand that.
3 Likes
I have no intentions of putting a HQ in solitude so don’t think that’s what this is, but why do you feel the need to disincentivize a player putting one down wherever he wants? Why is it that you think the defenders are incapable of traveling to a highsec island and blowing up a structure?
1 Like
Yeah the defenders don’t have to have a structure in highsec, only the aggressors. The defenders have to have a structure to be war eligible but it can be anywhere.
1 Like
Some people have mentioned it as an issue, I have no issue with it, in fact it makes it easier to blow up and disrupt them if they put it too far away.
1 Like
You can join an alliance during a war.
What you can not do is the following.
Corp/Alliance A declares war on Corp B
Alliance C declares war on A
Corp B joins Alliance C, then quits, then cancels the war with A.
As long as Alliance C is not the aggressor in a war with A, then B can join C.
Corp only adds a pressure to grow your highsec corp, and an incentive to belong to a corp with a structure, which is good.
But how would ACL be abusable? If you are green safety and they try taking you off the ACL in order to gank you, you just stop mining at that point. If you are yellow safety you obviously knew the risk and clicked through the warning at the time about exposing yourself to suspect risks, so… meh, tough luck, you set yourself up to get done at some stage.
I mean, I personally think corp only is good, and some structure stuff should be corp/alliance only regardless of ACL to add incentive to belong. But lets not go too deep down the rabbit hole of calling things ‘abuse’.
1 Like
I think the people that mention it as an issue find themselves behind some mental barrier where they find themselves incapable of traveling to accomplish a goal… or they might just possibly hate any idea that a Wardec group might support or find favorable.
Probably a combination of both as well as other hidden gems deep in our psyche!
1 Like
The whole dec shield thing where a corp can have their member base in an undecable corp all while reaping the benefits of owning a structure is very distasteful to me.
We’re all playing in this sandbox together and I don’t think that just because you’re a casual, bad player, or just want to be left alone from outside influence that CCP should provide a way to hide yourself behind an uninteractable veil. Yes I want to kill these players, but only because I want them to enjoy the game!
This mundane ■■■■ in this game feels best when served with risk. Remove ACL!!!
1 Like
Yeah no.
ACL’s aren’t going to be removed.
If you remove them you remove all freeports, you remove any kind of co-operation between groups, you even remove the ability to backstab by allowing enemies access secretly then removing it so other directors don’t notice as they ship stuff in.
This one particular instance being discussed of highsec moon mining, could ‘maybe’ be tied to corp/alliance rather than ACL and still be good. But there isn’t any abuse of using ACL for it either.
Because you are no worse off than right now, and no worse off than you ever have been for shooting said miners. Because they can right now be in an NPC corp and mine, they always could be in an NPC corp and mine. So this change if it went ahead would simply add some risk to some miners who are not on a particular ACL.
@CCP_Lebowski Is there anything in the works for the sideways war dodge.
A declares war on B & C.
A attacks B’s structure. C turns up to help B.
A now dodges sideways into D by docking up & changing corps, D only is at war with B.
C now stands around with a thumb places not able to do anything, resulting in a great many bored players who now log off from EVE in frustration.
Expecting everyone to always declare war on all possibilities in these cases simply isn’t a practical situation. Since it places a huge cost onto the ‘defenders’ which could easily be more than the potential the attackers are paying.
This problem doesn’t seem like it is being addressed at all in any of these changes.
1 Like
C should just have helped B in the war against D as an ally, and everything should be fine.
But should CCP be catering to players and allow them to have corp identity if they aren’t going to be playing fully in our sandbox?
Yeah I get that there have always been groups of players that we couldn’t touch if they remained in NPC corp… but again, should we reward the lowest type of player in this game? Is a bunch of casuals that have no interest in interacting fully in our sandbox the kind of players we want around us?
A long time ago CCP would have used the acronym “HTFU”… would they dare use it today? I doubt it with how soft this game and its players have gotten.
Abusable in the fact that 1 man corps can run multiple alt holding corps to safely mine multiple moons, through the abuse of the ACL mechanic.
Leave ACL for structure utilities, not planet materials, these should be corp only.
Or, if you accept ACL permissions, then you opt into any Wardec that may occur.
So turn up and blow those structures up then. The rest of them can’t jump in and defend the corp without actually joining the corp. That’s not an ‘abuse’.
Unless I’ve gone mad which could very well be true, allying costs if you aren’t the first ally.
Easy. CCP just need to announce “Sorry, moon mining in high security space was a mistake, all currently anchored structures on moon beacons in high security space will be removed and placed in the deliveries hangar of the owning corporation. Sorry, K, thanks, lol, bye.”
1 Like
HTFU war deccers. Not everyone exists to be bashed as a target.
A long time ago you also didn’t have people with 100 accounts farming isk, you didn’t have war dec alliances running super carrier ratting bots to fund their war decs, you didn’t have people with personal wealths of a trillion isk.
Claiming that a long time ago things were different, no duh. However they were different in a great many ways.
1 Like
There we go!