They were not immune before the war, they wont be immune after the war.
There is no need to fixate on the free fire rule set of low or null sec as being the only condition for player interaction.
Those players were vulnerable to others without war. There were still many avenues of interaction open, and the lack of war doesn’t change that.
Not to legal attack in highsec. That is what wars are for.
Sure, they are not immune to all player interaction and are open to illegal attack in highsec, legal attack outside of highsec, and a whole host of less violent interactions, but the stated purpose of wars is to facilitate legal combat in highsec and it does that, and quite well. And to fight over highsec structures there is no other way than declaring a legal war and duking it out so we absolutely need wars, or alternatively, a complete revamp of how structures are contested in highsec.
I still don’t see why so many people want to make engaging in legal combat in highsec even more convoluted than it already is. Just let people explicitly opt-out of wars by forming a “social corp” that has restrictions and all the people who don’t want to deal with wars can form social groups there, and let the competitive corps fight it out as the game was designed. That is way simpler than trying to turn what is essentially just a switch to turn off NPC protection into a game of Capture the Flag that won’t be used by anyone but the largest groups to secure CONCORD protection for their members, and probably result in even more wars being pushed onto the smaller and less capable groups as they will be the only viable targets for small and mid-sized aggressors.
How exactly can you reclaim it? If you “win” a war against my corp what’s stopping me from declaring another war immediately? Or from declaring a war with my other corp? Your idiotic structure gimmick doesn’t actually win you anything, because you haven’t successfully convinced your enemy to stop attacking you. And if you convince them to stop attacking you then you don’t need the structure gimmick to make it official, they’ll simply surrender and end the war.
(At which point you retaliate by mercilessly crushing and destroying their corp, ensuring that they will never dare to attack you again.)
Face it he wants EveCraft online, he’s not seeing the PvP sandbox
The mechanic we have been discussing adds to the pool of things to shoot. You get that right? It mechanically adds a structure which can be shot.
Except it is not reduced mechanically. It is expanded mechanically.
If it limits war dec aggressors, it is because those aggressors fear the potential of over extending themselves. Thats on them.
The benefit is in the possibility of more shooty play that other corps provide when destroying the war beacon.
Except those small war aggressors have options just like current war targets do:
Good for the goose, good for the gander yeah?
Additionally they can limit the decs they have to ensure they can defend assets.
And if the large corps are the aggressors, then small/med war corps get to see some action when they attack large corp assets.
So what if they do.
The defender still got what they wanted. It’s still going to take the normal amount of time to restart the war, so the defender gets their day or whatever.
The aggressor may not care about the money so much, but if they are still interrupted and have to spend the time and money to start it back up. They don’t get to just dock up and wait for the soft targets to return.
The outcome of which ends a wardec.
A PVE solution (shoot part of the environment), potentially with no player interaction at all, ends any further possibility of PvP.
These things have been discussed several times, so yeah I totally get the reality, which is ultimately to reduce conflict, not provide more of it. People want a way out of a war, so shoot a structure.
So I get what you are saying, but surely you also see that ultimately it’s about less shooting PvP.
How does it end any possibility of further PvP? Does it somehow stop ganking, competing for minerals, etc? I am confused, I thought we were just talking about ending a war.
Maybe high sec is too rough for you. Perhaps the rule set of low, null, or wormholes would suit your play style better?
In context Mike. We are talking about wars. Ganking is already possible as a shooting form of PvP alongside the risk cotporations face of wars. Nothing changes there. This proposal is about proviniding a PVE based solution to escape from a war. Net effect, less total opportunities for shooting PvP.
Last time I checked, competing for minerals, etc. aren’t shooting forms of PvP.
Yeah sure. Whatever gets your jollies off.
@ shooting player structures is pve
And it does not end the possibility of further PvP (which is now undefined)
The “reality” is not reduced PvP. By definition it can’t be. It is merely a possibility right now. Funny thing about player driven content is that it always is
Is the only thing bothering you about the idea is that it’s a structure being shot?
Tell you what, we can change it to a low barrier of entry capital ship that is allowed in high sec. The war extends a few jumps from whatever system the ship is in. The ship cannot fit a coaking device, cannot dock, and does not disappear when the pilot goes offline. We can add a new corporation role called Warchief, and the pilot must have that role to board the ship and activate a war. Leaving the ship causes the war to end with the same restrictions on restarting it as per normal.
The method of ending the war is now pure shooting PvP, Sound good?
What?
My opinion is outlined above, in this post:
But at this point, I’m not sure why I’m even responding, because genuine discussion isn’t something you have ever shown any interest in, so it’ll just be trolled regardless.
Your specific beef with a war structure to enable the declaring of war is that it provided what you deem a PvE method of ending the war, and by extension apparently all further PvP.
So we change it to a ship instead. Beef is resolved, conversation continues. It’s a capital ship, it even helps in the destruction of high sec structures…which I’m guessing magically becomes a PvP activity since its the aggressor shooting something rather than the defender. If it helps, we can link how long a war continues after the destruction of the Warship to the timers of any attacked structures, with the delay to restart the war not beginning until the war actually ends.
So, you have a path to victory for defenders, destruction of structures for aggressors and freefire PvP for as long as you can support a capital against your targets for the aggresors.
Nope. Wrong.
A war structure for declaring war is not my specific beef.
wanna quote the whole sentence?
the beef with the idea of a war structure itself was that it was supposedly a PVE counter to freefire PvP.
Changing it to a ship resolves that issue.
The rest of your position is already addressed.
Nope wrong.
My issue is not the idea of a war structure itself, nor about that being a PvE counter to free fire PvP. Changing it to a ship isn’t what I wrote at all.
Maybe go back and read your own posts…
The outcome of which ends a wardec.
A PVE solution (shoot part of the environment), potentially with no player interaction at all, ends any further possibility of PvP.
Then you moved the goalposts a bit…
In context Mike. We are talking about wars. Ganking is already possible as a shooting form of PvP alongside the risk cotporations face of wars. Nothing changes there. This proposal is about proviniding a PVE based solution to escape from a war. Net effect, less total opportunities for shooting PvP.
Last time I checked, competing for minerals, etc. aren’t shooting forms of PvP.
So, to address the above concerns, I suggest changing ‘War Structure’ to ‘Warship’. Thus we now have, by your definition, a shooting pvp answer to a shooting pvp situation. Further, it meets your original criteria of allowing a way to deal with high sec structures and allows freefire pvp against economic rivals.
I have reread my own posts. Your interpretation is not my intent. You have extended my words to mean what you want to read in them, not what was written.
My position is clearly stated in the post I linked above and I’ve consistently expressed that view over the last few years.
All the my “beef is with war structures”, “PvE solution”, “warship” is wrong.
I personally believe it will continue to be wrong because you have never shown an interest in genuine discussion, only point scoring (like that somehow matters), so what I wrote is ignored in favour of what you want the words to be.
Not that it will help in any way, but one more time for those that want to pretend the words aren’t clear:
My fundamental concern is that suggestions about wardec changes are nearly always based on ways to limit the large wardec groups, without considering the negative impacts on small groups and hunters, and that there are never any balancing proposals included that also provide benefit to offset the additional restrictions people want to impose.
You seem to be deliberately misreading what I have said.
I didn’t say your beef was with a war structure. I said the beef you had with a war structure is that it was PvE.
That’s from your own statement, not something I made up, and pretty hard to misread.
Your actual beef seems (and I say seems because you dodge whenever someone suggests something to address it) to be that wars might end at all. You like wars enabling free fire PvP against an enemy with that enemy having no recourse but to respond pointlessly in kind or dock. You say this is to enable the destruction of high sec structures and to enable the destruction of bot fleets.
To address that position I suggest a Warship.
Thus you get the ability to declare war and destroy high sec structures and enemy ships through freefire pvp. You target gets the ability to engage you in combat with the hope of victory and ending the war.