Yeah…that couldn’t possibly be exploited 
Define “structure”.
Player-Owned Customs Offices? They’re everywhere at this point even in high-sec. I think all of the NPC Customs Offices have been destroyed and replaced by player-owned ones.
Citadels are freaking everywhere. Sometimes I wonder how cheap it must be for a corp to be able to deploy such things in such large numbers in a very short time.
Although it probably isn’t a bad idea as long as it’s done right. If your corp is big enough to put up a structure ANYWHERE then you are likely prepared to defend it.
But I still have my doubts about this because what about the mercenary corps? Don’t they have a say in this? Some merc corps might not even have or even need a structure to run their business. I would then make a recommendation that small corps that don’t have a structure should be given the option to start a war dec on corps that do have structures. If you think you can take on the big boys then you should be able to prove your worth. If you are one of the big boys with structures than you should be able to defend it.
You should expand on that comment.
I am sure that the CSM would love to hear about the exploits since they floated the idea with CCP.
Actually they dont. Or at least be sure not to mention old watchlists or they get triggered and ignores the whole feedback 
Apparently not. 
I would love to share in your sense of mischief, but I didn’t understand the relevance of watchlist changes. Are the new watchlist rules ‘exploitable’? DO tell!
Oh, the workaround to check if people is online is mentioned in the csm minutes. And the reference is that I’ve been trying to get feedback from csm’s on my proposal to fix wardecs instead of tying it to structures they go on a rant telling me that watchlist is never coming back. End of conversation.
Not to mention Aryth’s childish comment on Talking in station
1 Like
Oh, right, I thought you were saying that the watchlist itself was exploitable for some other purpose.
The rest: meh.
But hey…nice attempt at making this about you.
If I understood correctly, they meant only corps that have a structure could be decced. The most obvious to me is a big corp would have its’ structures in a one man corp that would only give the main corp access, while the main corp would be immune to war decs
2 Likes
The game was doing better before wardecs were nerfed. It’s the carebear cancer that’s killing the game.
2 Likes
Good. Now, CSM, CCP, and others know exactly what you think is exploitable. Before, they could reasonably ignore you. Now, they can still ignore you, but they could be called unreasonable 
If you think the idea Madisyn parroted from the CSM is a problem, you should also be contacting your reps. Making a stink is usually the only chance you have of making an impact.
Yes good points. But I really don’t care about breaking a window if the house is burning to the ground around me.
Honestly, if no one on the CSM or CCP has thought about this idea totally destroying war decs, I’m inclined to sit back and watch Rome burn.
Few things I would like to add to this topic would be…
-> You should not be able to gang players why in a newbie corps. As you can’t war deck newbie corps.
-> You should be able to declare war on stru, player or corp. Each one should have a time limit and a fee.
Please explain. I don’t understand what you mean. Are you talking about high-sec ganking like you see C.O.D.E. doing?
Holding Corps have been common place for a very long time now and are even common practice to this day. Even Dust 514 had holding corps which were often used to work around any limitations imposed by CCP.
If they went forward with this, at the very least wardec groups would need to hold structures themselves in the region they are declaring war on a Corp from.
After Rome burns (it won’t) your still left with a mechanic you don’t agree with.
Just saying 
Just FYI: the version you discuss is not the only one being floated. Steve has a different conception. Which is probably the one you should engage with
Here’s a better solution to high sec wardecs: remove highsec. Now there will be no more complaints.
1 Like
IMO requiring the aggressor to have a structure in space will hurt small corps, but will have zero impact on the big boys, since the big merc corps either have a structures or certainly have the disposable income to drop them. The only effect I see this having is either small merc corps form alliances to afford structures and dec fees, or are absorbed by the big boys.
Requiring a defending corp to have a structure to be on the receiving end of a dec will allow any corp that wants to have 100% war dec immunity to have it by having their structures in holding corps. This will effectively kill wardecs.
I don’t really see any upside to either option.
1 Like
It might. Depends on details of implementation.
I am not sure how convincing that argument can be. The situation we have been living in for years is such that players can have immunity (technically or practically) that one could ask how this changes anything in the actual game.
Edit: Consider that it is already possible for the situation you describe to occur. That people chose to join player corps is more a function of feelings of ownership, QoL, and a desire for low taxes than because the mechanics require it.