One change. Then I give buffs to attackers. I give them ability to inflict better damage on the people trying to leave corps to avoid war by just dropping. I give them buffs when they attack people. I give them buffs to make it possible for them to destroy a corp. I give them a way to do everything that a war should allow them to do.
Guess you don’t want any buffs. So lets put it in test. What prevents you from anchoring an object that lets you declare war? We’ll go with just that piece.
Requiring a war ‘object’ does result in some changes to the core concept.
While I certainly can anchor one, it results in a dramatic shift to how wars can be prosecuted.
I can currently solo dec a 20,000 man entity and run around looking to snipe lone members who expose themselves.
With a war structure it becomes about a structure bash game, which is not a minor detail but a change to the core concept of wars.
The ‘Buffs’ you list also are changes to the core concept because they change the target of war decs from a corp label to all the members in the corp. And also dramatically increases the number of people who will simply log off and not play for a week under a wardec.
When a structure is launched it can be a war target. This does not change.
I said discard all the buffs and such and focus just on the object deployed to start a war. Just that. No buffs, no nerfs, just the object. That was your request.
Would not change the amount of people who avoid a war dec just by doing what is legally allowed in war dec situations. Your arguments against it are basically what currently happens is going to continue to happen if it changes from pay isk flat out to deploy and anchor an object.
Someone kept going on about how broken it would be if a corp could be wardecced if they had a structure, but what if there was a holding corp for those structures?
Easy, that structure would get blown up and there goes hundreds of millions, or billions of ISK. Doesn’t matter who the non-holding corp is. There’s a carebear structure held by a 1-man corp.
Well, not for long.
Also, wasn’t there a time where you had to get permits to anchor structures in highsec, and if you didn’t have any permits to keep a structure, it would unanchor or something? That should come back, regardless of wardecs. That way, inactive corps with customs offices or what have you would go away.
It doesn’t take much to ‘piss off’ HS wardecers. Simply being seen in HS in any kind of industrial ship is enough.
I think there’s plenty of room to improve and modify the wardec mechanics. Ultimately, without a wardec mechanic, highsec structures would be 100% safe.
Personally, I think wardec costs need tweaking, especially when opening the ‘War History’ tab of some alliances can cause your client to crash from the sheer number of active wars they have running.
All of that said, I personally recommend fleeting up and pushing their faces in. Most wardec corps are pretty crap at PvP, relying almost solely on catching individuals in defenceless transport ships. Bait them out and smash their precious T3Cs and they’ll start to run from you. I suggest bringing along someone in a ‘suicide smartbomber’ to nuke their HG pods while you’re at it. It’s strangely satisfying.