High sec mining corps are literally asking “We want to be able to PvP people in order to defend stuff we invested isk into creating”.
Why on earth are you so against high sec mining corps taking part in PvP?
Like seriously, anyone who claims to be any kind of PvPer should be totally on board with high sec mining corps getting some kind of ownership over their moon mining fields, because it’s miners doing PvP then.
The only rational explanation for why people would complain is that they want miners to be beaten down by CCP to being helpless targets again with game mechanics smashing them backwards.
To attack someone mining the moon, they open themselves back up to retaliation.
Since it will be an LE vs a suspect they can’t get remote assistance without said assistance also going suspect (or criminal depending on the Dev blog, but CCP seem to be saying that current LE behaviour isn’t changing)
So… They aren’t wanting immunity.
If you are asking CCP to close off mining moon ore from randoms, could you please also ask them to close of missions, hauling, and scanning too please.
If we could all have our own personal ore and ice belts too that would be great.
Its an improvement, at least until someone realises they just setting their War HQ vulnerability window to AU-TZ when the rest of EVE is asleep.
This isn’t just a problem for high security wars, holders of 0.0 space get nothing for owning sovereignty in terms of decreased citadel vulnerability and increased hostile citadel vulnerability.
Work on removing TZ tanking and maybe its a viable system.
There is a lot to like about the new proposed hisec wardec changes.
I have read the discussion so far and there are some great points.
The War HQ is great idea. However it should use Wormhole vulnerability timers during the war, or even faster timers. Maybe having 2 mandatory vulnerability days, that have to be at least 2 days apart for war HQ? After all, wardeckers want to fight so let’s encourage a fight with purpose.
As @Dracvlad mentioned the biggest issue is the removal of current neutral logi. I can see how that helps the newbro to see the threat against him, but really it does not. Logi can be right on the gate camp in log off etc etc. So the harm done to the possible “coalition” taking down the WH HQ is bigger than the hindrance to HS war pros who currently use offcorp logi. Wardec groups will adapt. Maybe the suspect timer could be slightly longer and being suspect might keep you from docking. The War HQ gives really a target for wardecked guys to do cooperation with other targets of the same wardecker and force a fight with purpose. Making that cooperation work as smoothly as possible should be the the priority of the changes. Not to mention all the other scenarios for reping someone in hisec that the proposed change would break.
Log off traps? Well that is another issue that has not been brought up. How about if you log on without PvP timer you have like 90 sec before you can shoot or rep?
Oh and fixing the structure dropping loophole during the wardeck does not fix the issue if structure spamming that was executed during the HK eviction. Maybe that tactic is not that much of an issue in hisec, but nevertheless it should be addressed.
Thanks for listening and addressing the “neutral logistics” support of a war side (usually the attacker)!
This will remove a great impediment to folks considering deploying high-sec Upwell structures, and may increase the number of corps eligible for war.
In the past, may Alliances with null and high-sec Upwell structures found that there was no pilot support for attachers of high-sec structures because of the “neutral logistics” advantage of the attacking force (who would have planned such before declaring )
We are excitedly looking forward to the April changes!
You mean AU TZ Highsec dwellers now get to be paid good isk as mercs to hit structures…
Sounds great, because unless the defending corp actually plays in AU-TZ, then the mercs can just bash it with a couple of oracles and kill it pretty easily.
That sort of TZ tanking doesn’t work nearly so well in highsec when people can casually station out of the same system, and have low cost DPS ships for if no-one turns up and actual fighting doctrines for if defenders do show.
So, one gets on a PvP alt, shoots said miner, then logs off. Then hops on an out of corp, non wardec alt miner and freely mine the belt using an ACL system?
Where is the retaliation window?
I’m not against high security space corporations taking part in PvP, I’m against high security space corporations owning a drilling platform and expecting to be able to claim ownership over the resulting belts like its different to one spawned by an asteroid.
If they want to PvP people for nicking rocks in space go to low or 0.0, don’t whine to the dev’s about a mechanic they’re lucky to have gotten to start with.
Right??? Wardecs are so much more enjoyable when you can bot in a super to pay for the costs. /s
Drac you’ve ignored my point before that Pirat is self-sustaining through contracts. The srp, the war costs, and all that come from contracts. No need to bot you silly person.
Sitting on that fat undefended structure that you can wardec whenever you want to wardec it?
But go on, tell me again how they are risking nothing.
It is a different one, a moon belt is spawned by the corp setting up a moon drill and spending isk to keep it fueled for several weeks while the belt gets there. It is literally created by the player/corp.
A normal asteroid belt simply appears at down time with no player action required.
Seriously, they are different. Trying to act as if they aren’t is downright stupid.
Thanks for all the passionate discussion on the subjects here, I wanted to just make a correction to some of the responses I was making yesterday as I was misinformed.
To clarify for the questions on suspect baiting, after the april release, (and completely separate from the criminal flagging for repping war targets), providing remote assistance to a player in high sec who is currently in a limited engagement will be a criminal offence, regardless of their war status.
This contradicts what I was saying yesterday, really sorry for the confusion caused by this, I’ll add some edits to my posts above so as not to cause more confusion for others joining the thread late.
I have been taught to think out side the box i see problems with the logi system that is being looked at .
The remote assistance changes are huge and easily abused against mining fleets especially against high sec orca & porpoise pilots or am i missing some thing as i only waded through 300 - 400 posts .
After proposed changes while in high-sec in an orca or porpoise with my safety set green would any of the following be a problem .
1 im boosting a mixed bag of miners in a belt 1 pilot is at war with some one and is attacked while being shield and mining boosted by me would i become a war target or possibly concorded .
2 while boosting a fleet if someone in fleet excepts a duel while being boosted would i be a target or would it drop entitle ment for boost before a duel started .
3 bait killing a booster some one sitting in a boosted fleet desides to set off a smart-bomb or attacks some one as this person is receving boosts will this effect the player boosting in eney way .
Whilst what you say may be largely true, it does seem a surefire way to end up disenfranchising a lot of NA-TZ and EU-TZ from being able to determine the outcome of their ‘own’ wars.
