This is wrong.
Even what I just wrote directly again, is completely ignored to push some other point.
My opinion on these things doesn’t matter anyway. It’s just one opinion among many. I don’t know why all the effort to ignore the fundamental concern I’ve written. It’s not all that important.
Then be explicit. What is your beef with a War Structure. Conversations are all about communication.
Why is one more time going to be any different?
I literally wrote it explicitly again, two posts ago. Ignored as usual.
It wasn’t ignored. You are just skipping over the part where it’s addressed and pretending I ignored it.
To recap, my understanding of your position is:
*Wars are necessary to facilitate the removal of structures from highsec.
*Wars are necessary to facilitate freefire PvP to engage the ships of economic rivals.
Quote me where I wrote 2 (now 3) posts ago, any of that.
So yeah, absolutely ignored and this is pointless air in the thread now, since what I write is irrelevant to what you want to push.
You asked me for direct (after I already was yet again) and then push something else anyway that isn’t my core concern with the suggestionsin this thread. There’s no point to further discussion, because you aren’t genuine.
Did you not say this:
In my view, there is already a ViceRegal system in highsec. It’s CONCORD and they kick in when any illegal aggression is performed. Of course, wardecs provide a way to facilitate legal fighting in highsec and that is an absolutely necessary system for: destruction of sructures (POCOs, Upwell strucutres and less so now POS) removal of economic rivals (though large ice mining multibox fleets for example are often all in NPC Corps, so the mechanics can be gamed both ways to both use wars agains…
And if we remove the part about Concord and illegal aggression outside of war we get:
Of course, wardecs provide a way to facilitate legal fighting in highsec and that is an absolutely necessary system for: destruction of sructures (POCOs, Upwell strucutres and less so now POS) removal of economic rivals (though large ice mining multibox fleets for example are often all in NPC Corps, so the mechanics can be gamed both ways to both use wars agains…
And if we further remove extraneous bits about people in NPC corps already outside of war we get this:
Of course, wardecs provide a way to facilitate legal fighting in highsec and that is an absolutely necessary system for: destruction of sructures (POCOs, Upwell strucutres and less so now POS) removal of economic rivals
So to recap, you feel that wardecs are needed for:
*destruction of sructures (POCOs, Upwell strucutres and less so now POS)
*removal of economic rivals
Which was addressed, but you pretended it wasn’t. If I have somehow misinterpreted your words, I apologize, but that up there is what you wrote, and that’s what I responded to.
The suggestion for a War Structure does not prevent the aggressor from destroying either structures or enemy ships so long as he can keep the war active. It just provides the defender a way to win the war non-consensually. He can declare it again. His path to victory always existed—he instigated this, he can end it whenever he wants.
That brought us to your protest that shooting a structure was PvE, and the counter suggestion of changing War Structure to Warship.
At which point you seemed to run out of room to move your goalposts and decided that I just didn’t understand or was deliberately extending your original position to something you had not said.
So by all means, please… make your stance clear, assuming the above quoting of your direct words were somehow unclear.
Like I wrote above, you continue to ignore what my concern is, so you can claim it is something else.
Even when asked a direct question, you ignore that in favour of some other message you want to push. You just aren’t genuine in discussion.
Just so it can be yet ignored again:
Ah, a different point altogether. These concerns were also addressed.
As I understand the above your issue here is that negative impacts to large entities are too harsh for small entities. This point was addressed by making the cost and upkeep of a war structure (or by extention a Warship) the same as declaring and maintaining war is currently, so in terms of ISK it’s a cost neutral proposition, with the deployment time equal to the waiting periods associated with wars, so in terms of time it’s also a neutral proposition.
You also want additional benefits to war to offset additional restrictions. This too is addressed in that by giving your opponents a target you get the PvP against otherwise unwilling targets you were after. Without such a target your oppositions best move is to simply dock and leave you nothing to shoot. Now you have the opportunity to shoot them with the trade off being you have something important to get shot yourself.
Note that none of this interferes with your initial stance that wars are needed to facilitate the removal of structures, as even if your Warship or Structure were destroyed the war would still be active until any timers from engaged structures elapsed, giving you the full opportunity to do what you set out to do.
It also still allows the freefire engagement of enemy ships so long as the war is active, with an enhanced chance of actually encountering those enemy ships since they now have a vested interest in engaging you.
I think I understand where your mistake is.
Let me help you:
Nothing in the war structure type concept specifically places limits on large war dec groups.
So, it cannot be the type of thing you are concerned about.
So they can declare war even in the absence of one, just like now?
Just like now, any corp can declare war on any other corp after paying certain costs
The exemption to this rule are allies. Who declare war by accepting an invite
Yes exactly.
So if that isn’t changing under this proposal (above it is), then why would any wardec group have one?
One what? War Dec?
Really?
Why would they have a wardec structure if it isn’t required and they can just declare war against anyone they want, just like now?
Dafuq? A war structure would be required.
Seriously m8, I think you might be too high to carry on a convo
@Scipio_Artelius @Zircon_Dasher
You two should come on the war discussion discord…
Mail me if you’re interested 
And no, it’s not toxic like salvos claimed it was
So there is a new limit as part of this proposal. Just a couple of posts ago you claimed there isn’t.
This proposal places new limits on anyone to be able to declare wars. It’s aimed, as is clear through the thread, at increasing the requirements on wardec groups through new mechanics, without considering the negative impacts those new mechanics have on small groups (including one-character Corps) to use mechanics that they currently have available, yet provides no mechanical benefit in doing so.
It’s a suggestion, purely aimed at allowing defenders a way out of a war, by imposing a mechanical limitation on a wardec group, but with no trade off at all.
Hence my concern. It’s just a straight shift in the game, towards options for defenders by placing limits on attackers. Defendersdont trade anything away for the option this provides them.
I see that you have chosen to ignore direct responses to your objections, presumably because it was hard to do and maintain your position. Cool.
What I said is exactly correct. A corp can declare war on another corp (as many as desired) subject to paying a cost.
Absolutely nothing changes in that regard.
Merely having to have a structure to be an aggressor does not place any limitations on you declaring war that are different from today.
No, not at all. I’m just going to make a more measured and complete response in a table form so you can easily see how what you wrote doesn’t match my current view.
However, since you bring that issue up, there was a question I asked up earlier that you seem to have ignored, in relation to win criteria. This post here:
Glass houses are so brittle.