FW: Killing Upwell structures of opposing faction should count as a faction warfare kill

Killing an Upwell structure owned by a corporation of the opposing faction in faction warfare doesn’t register as a faction warfare kill meaning that no faction warfare kill is recorded and no loyalty points are given. As a content driver this makes no sense. Rewarding a kill and the corresponding loyalty points would add another incentive to do PvP in faction warfare.

In general faction warfare needs more PvP and CCP should turn as many knobs and levers to make it happen. Making Upwell structures a part of faction warfare and rewarding players for blowing enemy citadels up be another such step. I would assume only very little work would be required for this change.

Fly safe

[EDIT] I’m not sure I made this entirely clear, so just once again: At the moment Upwell structures of the opposing militia is colored orange, just as players of the opposing faction is. Also the same rules of engagement applies to both players and Upwell structures of the opposing faction meaning that you are at war and can kill each other and each others structures everywhere. The only difference is that there isn’t a payout included when killing structures. I think there should be for the reason stated above.


I’m not sure a kill is the right reward, but there definitely should be rewards.


Enough reward to be incentive equals enough reward to be worth denying.your enemy with a non FW holding corp and using the ACL.

Based on that logic we should no longer require a structure to do a war dec because people will just get around it anyway

Nice straw man. Got a hat to go with it also?

Your concept is sound. Implementation details would need to be ironed out, but absolutely you are 100% correct. :+1:


You could address that by giving an incentive to own a structure in a FW corp.


You could… But CCP seem very reluctant to tie any bonuses to the owning Corp rather than simply anyone who can access the structure.
This has been an oft suggested thing for highsec as a balance to being in a structure owning Corp instead of just using a holding corp, and it’s received no positive feedback or action either.

An alternative idea might be to bring back empire charters and standing requirements for all empire space, high or low, but allow FW corps to not need the charters.

1 Like

Easy solution, allowing militia members to dock in your structure in FW space flags your corp (and structure) as a war target. Or you can retain your non-participation in FW and FW players are unable to use your structure. Force people to pick a side, loophole closed.

You’re right, we shouldn’t. Tying war eligibility to structures was a massive mistake and should be changed. And the use/abuse of holding corps highlights the issue very nicely.

Which is better solved via a carrot, not a stick. Such as moon mining requiring corp/alliance membership or suspect, & slightly more structure bonuses for being in corp/alliance (aka highsec gets low sec level bonuses, low sec FW corps getting Null bonuses for having a structure inside FW space & being in corp).

If you want to remove the structure requirement then you instead have to create a different version of social corps, to allow that social grouping that CCP have identified as one of the best ways to retain people without wardec vulnerability. I’m not married to the current form as having to be ‘the’ form of social corps, but there does need to be some form. And Dev time wise it makes more sense to stick with the current form and solve holding corps via carrots instead.

A carrot is a stick depending on how you present it. My proposal could be presented in carrot form as all player stations in FW space do not permit FW players to dock, but the station owner may voluntarily allow any/all FW faction(s) to dock at the cost of making their structure a target for the enemies of any faction they allow to dock. Now it’s an extra feature that you’re allowed to enable, not a penalty. And it’s one that follows intuitively along with the lore concept of FW and conflict between the NPC factions in general.

If you want to remove the structure requirement then you instead have to create a different version of social corps, to allow that social grouping that CCP have identified as one of the best ways to retain people without wardec vulnerability.

This is fine. Social corps should never have been tied to structures because structures are an entirely separate mechanic that has nothing to do with the concept. IMO there should be two types of corp:

Social corps have all of the same restrictions as an NPC corp (mandatory corp tax to the NPCs on top of any player tax, no ability to deploy structures, etc) but enable corp chat, corp logo, etc, so that the players who would otherwise stay in NPC corps to avoid risk are permitted to have access to the social tools. But because there is no practical advantage to a social corp they can’t be abused to get all of the benefits of a real corp without any of the risks.

Normal corps would have all of the advantages of current player corps, with the only difference being that all of them are eligible for wars (on both offense and defense) regardless of structure ownership.

Add in a solution to corp hopping (IMO have wars follow any player that leaves the corp) and you have a working conflict system again. And it is 100% worth the dev time to unchain conflict from a structure system that many players find boring and frustrating and have zero desire to participate in.

1 Like

That’s a solution in search of a problem. CCP have been very explicit that wars are aimed at corporations, not the members inside the corporation. Wars following individuals leads to actual harassment, players just logging off for a week and quitting, exactly what the system is designed to prevent. So you’ll never get that desire.

As for the rest of the social corp stuff, sure, I don’t have any skin in the game either way for social corps. It just means we’ll return to the days of tax evasion corps. But that’s hardly an idea killer.

1 Like

Yes, and it’s a problem when a corporation can “disband” and then immediately reform without penalty and magically be immune to the war even though it’s the exact same corp in all but name. So CCP needs to either make a corp mean something so that you have to defend your corp and genuinely lose something if it is destroyed or have wars follow the members so there’s no reason to leave the corp. And making corps mean something probably requires a major financial cost which creates a barrier to entry for new players who now can’t afford to start one. So wars following members is the only option left.

It just means we’ll return to the days of tax evasion corps.

But how would you? Under my proposed idea every social corp would pay the exact same NPC corp tax (on top of any corp tax the CEO sets) as an NPC corp. The only way to make a tax evasion corp would be to make a full corp which would include making it a valid war target. And taking the risk of war seems like a sufficient cost to stop paying the NPC tax.

This may require more of a financial buy in… But it’s the way it needs to go of those two options. Or we stay with current state, which im on board with saying its not ideal yes. And it’s the way which generates more social buy ins.

So… run a what if for me. What if social corps are cheap and easy. But the next step to a full blown Corp is where your cost happens. Since that’s the wardec stage.
Does that fill most of what we are talking about.

You mean like the old tax evasion corps all were targetable by wardecs yet still existed.

That would accomplish the goals of making it so winning a war can actually destroy something of value and preventing people from just reforming a new corp every time they are targeted. The problem is that if the price is sufficient to discourage corp hopping it ends up being prohibitively expensive for newer players and the only way for them to engage in the full game is to join an existing corp run by veterans (which often means being exploited by those veterans).

You mean like the old tax evasion corps all were targetable by wardecs yet still existed.

Solve corp hopping and they won’t.

But we can’t solve it by making it target players, or we just enforce the logging off for a week for everyone in a wardec. And we open the door to epic harassment. And this is EVE. people would abuse this to make people quit the entire game. Griefer styles. We don’t need that.

So we have to solve it by making Corps have investment.

Here’s a question. Does it have to be an up front cost. Or is it something you build up with some time and investment. Can even be tied to your structures. Build your Corp is over time. Replaces the old Corp size sales with selling pre build Corp hqs for people with isk who want to start a Corp, newbies can start small and build over time.

Specific to the disbanding/reforming issue for evading wars, what if the perks for PC corps were activity-gated with daily progress limits that are akin to the old charter functionality? By making them action-based and daily capped, you can force a direct time investment into a given Corp.

For example, in Empire space, before your Corp can anchor a structure, the Corp has to build positive standing with the faction that owns the space - and that standing can only be gained by current Corp members, with a daily limit in standings gain. Have corp-specific activities that build the standings (new agent missions in a ‘diplomacy’ category, for example) and limit the actions on a per-toon basis, so it takes a certain minimum viable threshold of engaged toons to rapidly stand up corp structures.

This is a very loose concept - I imagine it has lots of issues. Just thinking about ways to move Corps away from being able to brute-force everything with ISK without making them useless.

I don’t know, it doesn’t feel very natural.
Taking an extreme case, if I take a bunch of +10 members, and make a corp, you would think the faction would acknowledge ‘hey, we love all your members, maybe we like you guys as a group’.
I’m not against the general idea, just some specifics don’t sit right.

1 Like

I could see leveraging positive player standings to improve the rate at which the corp builds standings, but perhaps not wipe out the need entirely to still do some ‘glad handing’ work. Like a player with high standings gains more benefit for the corp than one with low/negative faction standings, but there is still some real time investment required to make it work. Gives players another reason to maintain good standings with local factions and not just hover at ‘better than -5’, too.

A hybrid system probably is workable, makes some sense, but also presents a complex picture to the players.
What this says is that it’s a complex solution, no simple press a button solve the problem solution.

In some ways solving structure spam & making each individual structure matter more and need defending more achieves this threads goal as well because you will get defenders to kill as well.