War Dec project?
Ye (I hate this minimum character thing)
Thatâs what the thread is all about, defining a path to victory.
The whole suggestion of using a structure (or ship) is about defining that path.
Iâm sorry if that wasnât implicit in the conversation already.
I look forward to your comprehensive response on how I have somehow misinterpreted your direct words.
Victory is misleading.
Its really a path of participation.
Nah, you can already participate.
Feel free to undock and engage, assuming they donât dock up as well.
What it does is put skin in the game so that participating is meaningful and not just pointless blasting away like itâs Battlefield.
Essentially it seems like there proposal is an attempt to define the loss of a structure by the wardec corp/alliance as a victory for the defenders, and the war stops.
So the victory condition that will exist (maybe not what other defenders see as victory at all), is to destroy a structure and the impact on the wardec group is the war (and potentially all the wars they have) ends.
Whatâs the victory condition for the attacker and what is the impact on all defenders?
Mechanically that is. This is a mechanical change to define victory and outcomes of that. Surely you have to define victory conditions mechanically for attackers and equally, outcomes for defenders.
Otherwise, as stated above, itâs just aimed at limiting wardeccers, while providing no balancing advantage to them at all.
The victory for the attacker is whatever he decides it is. He is the one that declared the war, and he can end it at any time for any reason he chooses. He can keep it going for as long as he likes, assuming he can defend the structure or ship that is allowing the war to exist.
The defender may pursue whatever other goals besides ending the war they choose as well, and if they call that victory then so be it. For those people nothing changes. The costs didnât go up, the goals didnât change, they can do whatever they want.
Then surely the same is also true for defenders and there is no need for a structure that defines it.
Otherwise, the above is no different to now at all.
That is already the case and the change is only about options for defenders, with no change for attackers, except additional mechanical limitation on them and greater risk.
Itâs just not balanced.
A structure is fine, but if a structure is going to be introduced, how is it balanced so that the attacker also gains something from the additional requirement.
What youâve outlined gains them nothing. They already define their own victory conditions (as defenders do).
The first sentence is not relevant.
The second sentence exemplifies why its a path of participation. Defenders can now participate in war time PvP even when aggressors dock up.
But hey. U b U 
Feel free to read the rest of the post, particularly the second paragraph:
See also previous response:
Sure, but that is already the case.
Cost now: 50 million. Costs in new proposal: 50 million (no change)
Structure required to declare war (change for attackers), no change for defenders (change with additional limitation on attackers)
Structure is destroyed and all wars end (advantage for defender, discadvantage for attacker) (change that has + for one side and - for the other)
There is no + at all for attackers in this proposal over the status quo.
That is an unbalanced change.
Why not balance it by returning the old watchlist capabilities (for characters located in highsec only, all others would be like running locates on wormholes).
So attackers gain the advantage of better intel and defenders gain the advantage of an exit path from the war.
Attackers have the disadvantage of an additional structure at risk, defenders have the disadvantage of intel showing when they are online in highsec.
Thatâs balanced. Something for both the defenders and attackers and disadvantages for both as well.
The current proposal, like nearly all wardec proposals only looks at how to punish wardec groups, and in particular the large groups.
To begin, the current situation isnât balanced.
Currently attackers have all the choice, defenders have none. Your stance assumes that the current situation is equal between attackers and defenders, but attackers can end the war at any time for any reason, and defenders cannot end the war at any time for any reason.
And to continue:
Youâre right.
Defenders can have an unlimited supply of free allies. Thatâs an advantage in favour of defenders.
Defenders mechanically have an advantage under the wardec mechanics and no one is complaining about that. Keep it. Itâs fine (and Iâm a defender, not a wardeccer).
Mechancially, every single thing about wardecs is exactly the same for the attacker as it is for the defender.
The other aspects about choice is straight up BS. Defenders have just as much choice as the attackers do. Iâm a defender in wars and nothing about having a war declared on us limits the decisions I can make. Nothing about the wardec mechanics limits the decisions any defending player can make.
Defenders can end the war anytime they like, even non-consensually. Reroll the corp, or drop to an NPC Corp. War ended immediately.
1 Like
Rerolling the corp isnât ending the war, except in the respect there arenât two sides in contest anymore.
But even if we accept that, where Is the issue in providing a second path to victory that is even more difficult and costly, requires actual pvp fights, and allows the aggressor to simply re-engage the war after the normal waiting period for declaring war?
History has shown bringing in allies has proven to be a two-edged sword.
If this is true:
How, assuming a defending corp chooses to defend instead of just dissolve, does the defending corp end the war?
What? Does the war continue?
Hang on:
So the war is ended.
Funny that. Thatâs good spin though.
There was a war. There isnât a war any longerâŚapparently the war isnât ended.
1 Like
Why should they gain anything since they have not been limited by the addition of a structure?
Thatâs certainly a way to lose the war. Now how do you end the war in victory?
I mean, you donât see that just giving up because there is no effective way to fight isnât unbalanced?
You are advocating that the aggressor gets to do whatever he wants, and the defender can just accept it or quit.
And by the same token, why should defenders gain anything either?
Itâs just as valid a question.
The premise in the thread is that defenders are entitled to something and if so, thatâs perfectly fine. But the standard should be kept consistent.
So if the answer is attackers arenât entitled to anything, then similarly by the same argument, neither are defenders.
1 Like
If you accept the premise is that defenders are entitled to something, the standard is consistent.
The aggressors already have the thing: Freefire PVP in Highsec, and agency in ending that condition.
The defenders only have one part of that, and there should be a path to express the second.
It is the lack of agency for the defender to end the war that causes the inbalance, which in turn causes the lack of PvP due to unwinnable (nonexistent) victory conditions so everyone just docks or rolls the corp.
This is the most cogent argument you have made in the entire thread.
Certainty some players think that defenders are entitled to something. Thatâs because they are entitled people more generally.
One of the war situations CCP has decided they donât like is when Defenders finally form up a fleet and the aggressors doc up.
The structures concept was borne as a way to mitigate that behavior. It has nothing to do with who is entitled to what.