You can already mutually wardec, just takes 1 wardec fee first. 50 million is already near nothing.
Small Corps aren’t able to touch PIRAT now. Nothing is going to change, no matter what the changes. PIRAT will still go on declaring war against other smaller Corps that own assets.
But that’s part of being wardeccable. If you don’t want to be wardeccable, don’t own a structure. But if you want to own a structure, then take responsibility for the possible consequences of that.
I was listening to walking in stations, it was Test and Horde players as well as Commander Aze who I know from the war dec discord. One thing I noticed was that two of them were adamant that they would go to hisec and would go do some burning of hisec war deckers.
So it got me to thinking about game balance in terms of the decision to not allow allies to rep the defender etc. While I think it is a very important aspect of getting hisec players to gang up and help each other against predatory groups like PIRAT and Marmite, on the other side it of course enables the major nullsec coalitions to really smash the hisec war deckers.
From a game balance point of view I certainly understand why CCP would not want the Imperium running around with full on fleets and destroying any war decker. I want consequences however I do not want the larger hisec war deckers to be bulldozed out of the game despite my distaste for PIRAT (due to the botting, if it was not for that I would be full on respect.)
So for me even though I don’t like it as it gets in the way of hisec players developing against war decs, it does have a major positive game balance impact to keep hisec war deckers in the game.
I would suggest that CCP keep this aspect in mind after a certain point in time however, because the objective has to be for hisec players to get up and fight. I am not a fan of balancing the game based on what the Imperium will do, but I certainly understand it at this point.
So while I don’t like it from the perspective of wanting to create a hisec coalition, I understand it as being the required balance for the game at this point.
This next segment is pap because Nevyn tested it and confirmed that the in the current system they go suspect, so they will be concorded. I guess once a troll always a troll Shae.
I just read the exchange between Shae and Nevyn and I understand exactly what Shae is saying, from my understanding it would work that way, which will be used by the Imperium at least initially which will be amusing to see. But coalition’s of hisec players could also do that, though the cost might be a little bit extortionate and out of their means. But if someone really wanted to defend a hisec Azbel for example they might cough it up.
Thanks Shae for that explanation, you have often been a bit of a troll and you did troll Nevyn a bit, but in that exchange was some really good stuff.
And the mutual wars aspect is even more interesting, excellent, good exchange. I would think that the hisec war deckers might find the first couple of months a real bind…, but it would enable some fun and games from hisec defenders too.
I am definitely going to use the mutual war to be able to rep each other.
And my final view is to keep it simple and allow neutral RR with a suspect flag because at the end of the day the main events are going to be around attacking structures and that means larger fleets and you are really just doing this in effect to enable small fights to happen more than anything else. So keep the current system in place for neutral RR and allow allies to rep without going suspect.
The boost change I would keep because that is easier to deal with.
Is the rule set already live on SiSi? When I read it right, the new rules will prevent repping war targets in highsec which are aggressed.
Also I still see a big mistake in excluding allies from helping each other. Just make allies join in all wars of the defender automatically. Problem solved (except for the militia issue).
To comment on remote sensor and remote tracking, to take a suspect flag from boosting someone shooting a suspect who only gets limited engagement is absolutely retarded. I should get a limited engagement timer same as the person I’m boosting. This should be fixed.
Just 1 question… If i own a one man corp ,and want to deploy a structure …That would basicly mean that a 200 man corp can show up on my dorstep ,saying “Allrighty u have a structure here ,prepare for war!!” It would not be much of a war ,just a good ol blackmail… Thinking …Shouldn’t the size of the corp have something to say too??
That allows for offensive allies, with one additional Corp involved
Despite some of the constraints being placed on war declaration in recent and proposed changes, the general EVE philosophy is still that “the weak will/must perish”. Yes, there are clearly rules that are intended to cater toward carebears in some areas, but structures are considered fair game within the constraints of the established system security rating mechanism.
Does this mean if I have poco’s up, but no structure to wd, no one can wd my corp and attack the poco’s?
Also, will this drive small corps into giving up their structures and paying the tax at npc stations just so they will ineligible for wd’s?
POCOs are structures. You own one, you can get dec’d.
Mine sits packed in the station along with all equipment i have for it…
It’s not an issue… it’s a feature!
Maybe…but that is exactly as it should be. Apparently most players do not want to incur the explicit costs of a war dec–i.e. putting a place holding alt, dropping to NPC corps and waiting out the war dec. Now CCP pretty much lets you opt for the same outcome while retaining your corp name/ticker and roles.
The problem with neutral logi is multiple groups can have agreements to repair each other making breaking tank in place like jita extremely hard.
War for the most part is not wanted by one side. Who wants to have hostiles messing with their daily activities and isk making. I have found most corps now have a holding corp with 1 member so that they themselves can’t be wardeced. And since most don’t like people messing with them, and no real need for structures in highsec, you will totally kill highsec wars. And yes more wars have been thrown, because we are trying to get more targets as the target base is drying up fast! Sure you will always have the big null groups to wardec, but that doesn’t encourage fights but picking off the lone traveler for the most part. You got 2 kinds of people in eve, those who make isk for enjoyment, and those who destroy isk for enjoyment get rid of one, and you loose both.
Another problem when you declare war to have that corp pull it’s structure ending the war before it starts and loosing your isk spent on the war is to put plainly, retarded. The wardec cost is needed as the weekly wardec price for merc groups to get a decent amount of targets is outrageous. But this is eve, a sandbox, it’s space, it should be dangerous. You should be able to wardec anyone in the game, even individuals for a price, unlimited safety does not promote gameplay. You wanna promote safety by game mechanics, yet for 8 years i can’t fill my freighter in highsec as it will get ganked, which is an abused mechanic due to wrong structure hitpoints on all ships, i mean 15, 2 million catalysts taking out a full slaved reinforced bullhead freighter carrying a 1/4 m3 load due to over isk in the hauler, but they weren’t wardeced… Just like local, why is there a local telling you who is in system, i mean is there some kind of ccp gate monitor who decided to tell everyone is local who is in local? REMOVE LOCAL EVERYWHERE! 
Statistics can give false positives. Yes more wars are going out, but soon everything in highsec will be 1 man holding corps, who wants to bash 3 timers for a holding athanor which may be bad timezone on the timer, this will only greif their structure and not them, and it will never get them back into a war eligible status. and the wars will be for nullsec.
Is this the case?
I was under the impression from CCP over the years that the majority of eve players live in high sec and are fairly casual. Miners, mission runners etc. And the percentage of players and merc groups dedicated to war on weak targets is pretty small, hence the initial changes in this long process in needing a structure to even be eligable for war.
I think CCP know this is untrue and are starting to realize this at ground level that if you got rid of the weak targets, “isk for enjoyment” the later would decline but if you got rid of non consensual pvp the former would only increase.
Haven’t seen anything discussed about this. With the way high sec reinforcement timers work this kind of destroys the whole “defenders have an objective to end a war quickly” or “attackers need to put something on the line”.
It will 100% be abused, and its either going to have to be fixed later, or it will sit around and be another ugly thing that takes too long to be investigated again.
I just did this test.
B is at war with A & C.
A shoots B, B shoots A, C reps B.
C goes suspect as a result of repping B, despite being at war with B.
Whenever it was tested in the past by you, things have changed.
You now go suspect.
Which makes sense, because you’re repping someone with a timer, who’s not in your alliance.
Yep, there were just claims of tests directly to the contrary.
So I ran a test to see what the latest situation was.
Has probably and hopefully been mentioned already: The War HQ must under all circumstances be never allowed to be in null sec. It must under no circumstances be possible for CFC to have a structure, let alone their Keepstar in 1DQ1 as War HQ. War HQs must be located in high sec.