I like the idea of using LP to maintain the structures simply because it breaks some of the issue with alts.
Currently you can’t do hardly anything interesting, because alts allow for a risk and consequence free end run around any restrictions. On this topic, wars get funded by the space rich who themselves stay immune to the consequences due to anonymity. Making a wardec into an attackable structure provides a target to actually win the war without relying on the charity of your enemy, and making part of it’s upkeep LP means resources in space return to their intended roles as conflict drivers. At that point they can’t just stay docked until the odds are overwhelmingly in their favor, they have to actually risk the same things their targets are risking, or drop the war entirely.
You’re applying LP to the structure which makes LP unnecessary. Either you have an office in an NPC station which costs LP, or you have an office in a Upwell which costs fuel/isk if you rent. We do not add LP to player stations to keep running a corp. Losing Upwell offices is not instant termination for your corp. You can kick them back in as long as you can find an office within 2 weeks.
Using LP or structures or any form of trying to “limit” wardecs by incurring an even bigger cost (be it starting up or ongoing) is just plain bad.
One of the main complaints is that nowadays, some of the wardeccing groups are just too large to be able to defend against, but the thing is, increasing war costs are exactly one of the reasons why those groups have become so large. Higher costs force people together to be able to afford them.
Instead, we should be aiming to LOWER the costs of wars overall, in order to encourage younger players and smaller groups to be able to wage wars.
Back in the day when wars were only 2m a pop, it was easy for me as a nublet to afford a war (or 2) and not break the bank. Otoh, 50m was at the time, the price of a battlecruiser, something I could ill afford.
Now, 50m for me is nothing, the same as 2m, relatively speaking. However, it isn’t for that young player that just wants to have some fun declaring war, or who has a grudge perhaps.
Adding spaceborne structures, structure modules, LP costs or ANYTHING else, will only serve to make wardeccers group up even more, make bigger conglomerates, which are then more likely to blue each other and then you’re completely fscked.
While we’re at it can I have a “remote loot all” button that doesn’t just instantly loots stuff into my station hangar but does so with all wrecks and cans on grid, and which button is only available to me and nobody else? As a balancing factor I accept a criminal flag (including sec status decrease) and even being CONCORDOKKEN each time I use it.
I don’t agree with high costs. I do agree with moving the costs to something that isn’t transferable between characters, such that you cannot fund an empire for an alt to remain in complete control of the consequences to yourself. The game is about non-consent. Everyone should be vulnerable to it.
Moving some of those upkeep costs to LP means that the aggressors have to put out soft targets of their own, though not all that soft since they can easily pull off highsec missions in completely PvP capable setups, especially if they do it in groups with logi backup.
They could also avoid those costs by moving out into nullsec, where the good graces of the local empire does not apply, nor is permission needed to shoot anything you want. They would still need it to put structures in high sec, for instance if wardecs became limited to a certain distance from a structure instead of global the way they are now, which would mean they need to put out their soft targets in the general vicinity of the people they are attacking. The cost does not have to be high, just enough to get some skin in the game.
The problem with the current war setup is twofold. First, all the costs to the aggressor are paid upfront. They accepted the lost ISK before anything even happened, and they are in complete control of every aspect of what they may lose. The second is the lack of a path to victory for the defender that does not involve the charity or consent of the aggressor. You can make them want to end the war, but you can’t make them actually end the war. The best counterplay currently is simply not to play at all.
No, that’s your perversion. It is not universal. The best counterplay currently is to stop being weak and persuade the aggressor to go elsewhere. You may not be able to press a button that forces them to end the war, but you can certainly fight back, force them to dock up and hide or take losses, and make it an obvious choice that continuing the war is not in their best interest.
Moving some of those upkeep costs to LP means that the aggressors have to put out soft targets of their own
Or just farm a bunch of LP before the war begins. It’s not like any PvE content is even remotely challenging, your idiotic system just puts a prerequisite of spending X hours farming between wars. And if you make the LP price high enough to be more than an annoying inconvenience you make it crippling for newer corps that just want to build their first structure.
They accepted the lost ISK before anything even happened, and they are in complete control of every aspect of what they may lose.
Only if the victim is weak and refuses to fight back. If you remove this assumption the target of the war is perfectly capable of causing ship losses that the aggressor does not control (unless they dock up permanently until the war ends).
Aggressor decides to pump tons of ISK into an alt. The ISK is nothing to him, he can keep multiple decs going at one time. He considered the ISK gone the moment he put it in the wallet of the alt. His only purpose is LOLs deccing people in high sec, the alt’s corp was made for the purpose, and nothing of any meaning to the main is ever risked even if the entire corp was looted this instant.
How does a defender force an end to that war?
I mean, the defender in this case is willing to fight, and even able. So what’s his target to force the end of the war?
You camp him into a station? He does not care, he just goes afk for a day and plays his main. Kill his ship? He does not care, the ISK is meaningless.
So where is the meaningful content for this aggressor. What can the defender PvP to make him drop the war?
Ignore your own silly argument that the war should just never end and highsec should just vanish. Why you aren’t ignoring anything not in null or a wormhole is beyond me. So since you are here arguing for this biased mechanic to stay, tell us in all your wisdom what it is the defender can to that matters to the aggressor. I’m perfectly happy with a PvP answer, but an answer is needed.
By not being an entertaining target. If, rather than LOLs, the result is getting his ships destroyed then the attacker is going to drop the war and go find someone else to kill for the LOLs.
He does not care, he just goes afk for a day and plays his main.
Then you have won, and you go back to business like the war doesn’t exist.
If you want any respect you need to follow Wheaton’s Law. Report RMT to CCP games. Throwing a target onto someone without reason you lose a lot more than respect.
Changing someone else’s statement to support your claim that they are RMT’s is just low.
If there wardeccing corp is just a lols alt, then the wardecced corp can just carry on like adults and not care about it in the slightest. They aren’t risking anything either.
Just because the aggressor is doing this for Lols does not mean they aren’t effective.
The point is that under those very common circumstances there isn’t anything the defender can do to force an end to the war. They can beg, plead, inflict losses, or bring allies… but the aggressor has already written of any and all assets of his war corp.
Well, there is that little matter of the defender being attacked while out doing his thing, whatever that thing may be.
Fair enough, people get attacked, but in High Sec that’s supposed to come with CONCORD. In this case the defender is willing to fight to restore CONCORD, but there is no way to do so that does not rely on the charity of his aggressor.
Some people don’t like to fight without there being a point. Defending in a war is pointless, as there is no way to actually win.
Rubbish. There is a plethora of tactics you could be employing to make the war incredibly boring for the bad guys. Some of the weaker willed folks around here just want to grind their ISK without the threat of PvP, that’s the problem really. Quit warping your unwillingness to adapt into an actual lack of options
What way exists to force an end to the war that does not rely upon the charity of the aggressor to end it?
It’s fine if it’s a PvP answer, but it cannot rely upon simply trying to convince the aggressor to end it of their own volition. EVE is about non-consent, so how do you force the issue as a defender?
There is no credible way for a defender to nonconsensually force the end to a war. To claim otherwise is stupid. And this is the real problem with wardecs.
Essentially, give them what they don’t want (just as war should be - whether that means giving them lossmails, or not giving them easy kills. Make it so the cost of the war is not worth it to them and despite wanting to extend a war, there’s no point for them).
Yes there is. You can click ‘leave corporation’ and confirm and the war immediately goes away. You can also join another corporation or close you corporation and reopen another one. Leaving a corp at war is the intended solution to opt-out of a war provided by CCP.
Wars are between corps, not players, and if you don’t want to fight anymore you can leave at anytime. You totally can unilaterally end your fight with another group by just resigning from that group, just like you can for Faction War.
