Main War declaration thread


(Nicolai Serkanner) #762

What?


(Madlightning) #763

a rough idea for reforming War dec system

(sorry also alittle sleepy ill edit over the next few hours


(Jonah Gravenstein) #764

Ideas on how to alter mechanics that you think need changing belong in Features and Ideas.


(Markus Reinhart) #765

The solution to wars is really simple but lets just have CCP and the CSM decide what happens to wars, because they know best :lol:


(Madlightning) #766

thank you i didn’t see that :sweat:


(Solecist Project) #767

How much time did you spend thinking on this?


(Yiole Gionglao) #768

Short version: corporations who start a war on another corporation and it is not mutual are forbidden to dock/undock in high security systems (neither stations nor structures nor mobile depots; CONCORD would disable the option based on pilot license), forcing them to either set up a base in LS/WH/NS or refit/resupply/repair/reship in space using the tools already available. Thus non-mutual agressors would be operating like a marching army, with exposed logistic chains (neutral ships can’t assist them, they need to bring their own helper ships from their base thus making them vulnerable to attack). Also means that a character who starts a war on a unwilling target is comitted to it unless he uses an alt.

This would be independent of the general wardec mechanic, it could work either with the current model or a different one. The aim is to force aggressors into a onerous commitment, thus making non-consensual wardecs dependant on actual commitment to fighting them. Conversely, the aggressed corporation would enjoy the benefits of operating in friendly territory since they could use HS services normally.

Oh, and what about mutual wars? They remain the same, both sides can use HS at will.


(erg cz) #769

Why? The whole point of high sec war dec is that you can operate in high sec, with all you have there.


(Yiole Gionglao) #770

…unless you’re 99% of wardec targets. Let’s balance that out a bit, no matter how wardec mechanics shift.


(Black Pedro) #771

This is impractical and makes little sense. I want to push someone out of the ice belt in the system I consider mine, or remove a Raitaru that is jacking up the industry indices? I have to move to lowsec, then come back to my home to fight them? And given ships and goods can be traded, looted, shared, and boarded in space, neutrals would completely circumvent what ever you are trying to accomplish.

-1 and please post in the correct sub-forum next time.


(Nicolai Serkanner) #772

You don’t balance out any thing.


(Giddy McFee) #773

All these recent posts about wardecs are getting irritating now. How about the people being the non mutual part of the dec becoming informed, find out best practice ie, dont go to your high sec trade hub in your freighter, instead use out of corp alts to move equipment.

leaning how to deny your foe kills so that they get bored and move on.

moving to low/null sec yourself in order and set up a temp base there so you can still play the game and again denying them kills.

In my experience, most wardecs are blanket opportunistic wardecs that people place i n order to get opportunistic kills at trades hubs, learn how to counter them

If someone is after your citadel then sure it is a bit different, but then you should really learn about the mechanics of the game and know that people can wardec you, But if you start a corp, and get a citadel etc, then the CEO should make themselves aware of wardecs, what can happen and have a plan.

This is not a game for being wrapped up in cotton wool, you need to improvise, adapt and overcome, not bleat like schoolkids


(Nevyn Auscent) #774

When the very first suggestion you post is alts… that says how bad the mechanic is.


(Lucas Kell) #775

Highsec wardeccers will always target the uninformed though, that’s the whole point, highsec wardeccers aren’t looking for an even match. You can’t expect people to just know stuff, not can you expect every player to want to try to engage in futile combat with a bunch of veterans with years of experience.

They do, that’s the current problem. They deny kills by not playing the game.

Unless you’re a ganker or wardeccer, then you seem to think they should be wrapped in cotton wool and protected from anythign that might make their gameplay even remotely challenging.


(Giddy McFee) #776

I don’t expect people to just know stuff, but if your wardecced then surely you think to yourself “what this, ill go find some information on it” and then go out and find some information about it, ask people, there are people in this game that like to help and will offer advise. Then the next time it happens you know what to do better.

They don’t need to stop playing the game though, they just need to find other ways, against asking people, searching for information online. etc.

Not sure what you are saying here, i am not a ganker or wardeccer. what am I saying here that indicates that i WANT people wrapped i n cotton wool and protected from anything that makes there gameplay challenging.

I am saying to people that are wardecced, get informed, avoid the wardeccers so you CAN play the game when it becomes more challenging.


(Solecist Project) #777

Are you being moody again? :stuck_out_tongue:


(Yiole Gionglao) #778

Guys, this is not about wardecs, but about the cost of war for aggressor corps. About what are they willing to put in the line and it being riskier than a opt-out for suicide ganking.


(Lucas Kell) #779

They do though.Unless you plan to fight back - which is unlikely to do anything against veteran wardeccers - your main options are to not play or drop corp. That’s just the way it is with the current broken mechanic.

What I’m saying here is that people like you like to frequently talk about how we shouldn’t make things too easy for people, and yet gankers and wardeccers have an incredibly easy time because the mechanics are balanced in their favour, yet any suggestion to make that harder is met with hostility. So in that regard, if you are fighting against changes that would make it harder to be a wardeccer, you are suggesting we continue to keep wardeccers wrapped in cotton wool.

You can - if you want to fight against a bunch of people who are undoubtedly more experienced in fighting than you are and inevitably lose your stuff for absolutely no gain. Defenders gain nothing from fighting back, in fact they are actually more likely to get decced again if they feed aggressors killmails. Their best options are to stop playing or drop to NPC corps.


(Giddy McFee) #780

They dont though, yes things are different if you have infrastructure like a citadel maybe but if your a random corp in high sec then there is nothing to bind you to that system, move to low temporarily until the wardec passes, most deccers dont go to low or null sec

I am not denying that the system is broken, but all the options ever presented are flawed and unworkable, you cannot really have a situation where you can only wardec if conditions A B and C are met, (or not wardec unless conditions A, B and C are met), its either you can wardec, or you cannot wardec really. Do you really think this suggested on this thread is viable… the wardeccer has to move to low or null? that’s nuts.

I am not saying fight them, quite the opposite, im saying don’t fight them, avoid them move away from the area, even if temporary, not everyone has to drop corp jsut a coupleof alts if you need things from trade hubs do whatever you need to do, I agree don’t fight them as yes it will feed them and they will extend the wardec.

I think you are deliberately misinterpreting what I am saying … but what is your solution to it all then? My main has been in corps that have had tons of wardecs, i never logged off and stopped playing, we took action, we got informed, sure you may get a couple of loses but soon they get bored and move on. althe while I still played the game.


(Lucas Kell) #781

But then you’re just opening yourself up as a target to everyone else. Wardeccers don’t go to low because they don’t want to fight where they may lose, why on earth would a highsec player with no interest in wardecs choose to move to low rather than just drop corp?

Most are nowhere near as broken as now.

Why? Think about it, if I want to do stuff in highsec free of wardecs I can just stay in an NPC corp and most of the time there’s no taxes. If wardec rules mean that you can only declare war if both parties have structures in space, it wouldn’t really break anything, would just mean that people who would normally float about in NPC corps can now actually get togethre and over time move to a position they want to risk wardecs

The problem is right now that the second you want to join up with other players you’ve got to expose yourself to that risk straight away. Why would we have a mechanic that allows risk-averse veterans to put people off joining groups with other players?

No, but then most suggestion on wardecs aren’t this crazy. Like I said, a better situation for now would be to tie it to structures.

But the easiest way to do that is to just drop corp. Why would you just drop some haulers when you can just drop everyone that needs to undock and rejoin when the dec is over? Why risk being in the corp and undocked if you are at war? What do you gain by doing that rather than just dropping corp?

I’m not. As above. I think long-term a much bigger overhaul is needed, something that gives defenders a reason to want fight back that isn’t just avoidance of a punishment and forces aggressors to actually put something on the line.

Good for you, clearly you enjoy the game in that way. Many people don’t. Being that it’s a sandbox people shouldn’t need to conform to your playstyle just to be able to hang out with other players in a group.