But your own proposal will do the opposite.
No, it will add RISK to aggresors. It won’t take any RISKs from defenders. If you are afraid of RISK then don’t get involved in structures and wars.
You’ll ask cost for 1 aggressor and kill off almost all other non-mutual wars.
You aren’t increasing risk. You are adding cost and capping what Corps are allowed to do unless they throw down a Keepstar and pay more in fuel costs.
You are mistaken. It will not kill non-mutual wars.
And if a corp want to declare +100 wars they should take appropiate risk. If they cannot take the risk then they SHOULD pick their wars and maybe more meaningful way.
Small corps with less then 5 wars has lower risk then a major corp with +100 wars. And that is balance.
Nerfs and no benefits to offset those nerfs. Yeah corps are just going to lap those up with big thanks.
Nerfs are necessary if there is imbalance and yes I do believe corps will thank CCP if they implement a system like this.
Which corps?
Not aggressors by a long shot.
The corps and capsuleers who cheerish real PvP content, both aggresors’ and defenders’ side vOv
War HQ is there to give a defender to chance to fight back and risk factor to aggressors. Previosly the hisec wardeccers evade pvp but they do regularly camp stations and trade hubs & gates against people who cannot defend themselves and they dock up when pvp ship / fleet comes nearby. So defenders either be dead or denied from content. This War HQ now brings back a bit risk to wardeccers and providing content and chance to defenders to fight back.
And since now war eligibility tied to structures, they are not PART of wars. If you are in a corporation that wants to thrive and put up a structure, you should defend it. If you are in a wardeccer corp that wants to declare wars to others then you have to put up a structure and defend it. Structure warfare may be boring but it is still content and not bad for the game.
You are saying ;
So lets say a corporation wants to have a 6th war. You are proposing 312billion ISK as a cost.
I am proposing to have a Fortizar structure (lets say 10 billion ISK) , proper module (2.5 billion ISK) and fuel to online (84 million ISK weekly) for more then 5 wars (up to 25) on top of war fees.
You are saying my proposal is setting a too high level barrier but isk wise you are offering 312 billion ISK as a fee and I am offering to have a 100 mil isk fixed war fee but have a 12.5 billion ISK worth of infrastructure and 84 million ISK weekly to online it.
Am I missing something here ?
I am scaling up the ISK and the RISK (structures) for wardeccers so defenders can have a chance to hit back instead of roll over 
Although I must say this your 5x scaling for war fee seems to be extremely effective however this will also negatively affect smaller corps that wants to get into regional wars & conflicts.
No, I am specifically saying that needed a Fort to start is a barrier TO ENTRY. I mean, large corps are going to start with Rait and then work their way to a Fort in a week or two, pull down the Rait and put up a Fort with the timer nonsense…they will do that right from the start. So that’s 15B realisti call right away.
If you knew your enemy had a Fort and you just a small Rait, would you WarDec? Nope. Not to mention the added skills I think your system needed for the purposed modules.
So for one war, my cost is a Rait and 100M. You are at apx 15B. For two wars, I’m at 600M total and you are at apx 15B. For three wars I’m at about 3B…etc…at 4 wars our systems reverse.
So as I have said all along, what I suggest has a low entry cost but quickly prevents wardec spam. Yours increases the initial cost by about 30 times and does not much to limit wardec spam.
…and I would point out the the whole point of this thread is to limit wardec spam which was a key pillar in CCPs goals to the new WarDec concept.
This is a myth. Little 2-6 person corps are NOT going to attack a Pirat Fort…heck even an Astra. They have no chance. The only way attackers get the tables reversed is when people organize in a large way. So why would you force everyone to deal with a Fort or have a Fort to begin with?
Regional wars involve alliances and such where the role of a solo corp is limited…I mean, a 10 man crew is not going to fight to take all of Lonetrek now would they…bit of a moot point.
That was just an example…I would prefer to see a non-linear exponential growth curve…but it made the point I guess.
The minimum barrier is a medium citadel, Astrahus, not Fortizar nor Raitaru. Citadels are structures with combat stats and they should be set for being HQs not other types of structures (in my opinion). So if you want to declare war up to 5 wars all you would need a Citadel (1 billion ISK, 2.5 bil ISK with proper fits), Upwell Module (500 mil ISK) and 17 million ISK weekly for base infrastructure and on top of it you will have war fees.
No, not a myth. I was in EVE Uni and mercs did not take fights until we bait them away from their safety zones. They tend to dock up and wait until we leave and then start camping again. If you attack their structures you basically force them to take a fight and that happened before. So without risk of loosing structures, wardeccers don’t take the risk of fight and hence defenders left without content so they generally don’t do anything, if you give defenders proper chance of winning and content they will use it. Not a myth but a fact.
My bad, I should phrase more clearly, i mean system wide, constellation wide wars, and maybe regional wars. My point is to have more “fun” conlicts and content around all over hisec, not only several trade hubs that being camped by wardeccers.
So then what happens with corps with Rait/Ath? Why can’t that be the minimum? If we’re trying to endurance small corps, why double the starting needs with a Cit?
If it wasn’t a myth then there would be these groups in the first place now wouldn’t you agree? I mean, if what you are saying was the truth then it wouldn’t have been profitable for the big guys all these years…Remember, 5 corps, 50% of all wars…these is a ton of ISK to be made…
I mean vaguely speaking, it is possible for a small group to control a system but more than that an it’s a stretch, If the system has any value then bigger fish are already there and have it locked down so. A small corp will fight over belts and moons but that’s about the scale…
You said it is a myth that defenders attack aggresors if they given a chance and I said there are proof otherwise.
Can you clarify what are you saying and asking? I am feeling that either you are missing a point or I am not answering your question.
The structures have their roles, Engineering Complexes for manufacture, Refineries for mining and resources, and Citadels for defense and other purposes, so I think utilizing Citadels for this purpose is much more convenient. Their base stats are also suitable for combat and hence good for the role. And I don’t really want empty /not rigged and fitted structures as HQs all over New Eden. If you want war, you have to take risk, that is it.
It is not possible to really control a system in hisec, but my point stands, fight over resouces available in a system. If you are a small corp fight for a moon, if you are bigger one fight for all system resources and try to force others out , or cooperate with them if that is your choice.
So this fits perfectly to a better and contentful wars and hisec.
That’s correct. If defenders fought back (ie counter attacked) then there wouldn’t have been WarDec spam all theses years. Sure I bet on occasion the attacker had to retreat or like the other day, lost an asset. But those are the vast exceptions. WarDec spam is a thing because it’s easy low risk ISK for the attackers. What is my proof? Look the numbers for the the big guys and you will easily see that is the case.
So what you are actually saying is that corps with Raits/Ath are non-wardec-able…totally do not support that.
Err…against another corp it is extremely easy to do that now IF both have stations. Works as intended! so even 1 person corp could fight another 1-person corp for a moon or PI or whatever for the stupidly low price of a Rait which is great…please don’t fight to change that and make it harder.
No I am not saying that. I am saying Upwell Command modules should be set in Citadels to become War HQs. Other structures can still give corporations war eligibility so other corporations can declare war on them but if you want to declare war you have to have a citadel war HQ (upwell command module in a citadel) , according to my proposal.
You see the problem with that right? We’ve been trying to tell you this for a while now.
This is exactly what most don’t want, especially CCP, as not only do it make small indy operations 100% vulnerable with no recourse other than a large investment. They will justresort to going back to NPC corps.
You really need to step back for a bit and listen to what people are saying here…you’re not far off what we want BUT how you purpose getting there is really quite a throwback.
I really can’t say too much more here…
Bull. We used to fight your guys in the nullsec campus every day and it wasnt us docking up.
Nullsec fights are not relevant in this topic. I am talking as a former member of Hisec Campus.
No I don’t see any problem here, if you are a hisec corporation that wants to have structure for industry, mining and etc, then you can build whatever structure you want but you will be open for wars. (and CCP did this change, so i think they wanted this)
If a corporation wants to declare war on others so at least they should have a citadel fitted with proper module and take the risk.
I think this is all fair expectation 
EDIT : Although I find it acceptable to have other structures to become War HQs as well. Even I don’t personally favor it, if it gives small scale corps better chance to get involved so be it.
…but you are ignoring that VERY important fact that it means that they could then WarDec too…THAT is my point! You are saying that you agree with CCP but that it shouldn’t apply to Rait/Ath…Your EDIT does correct this a little mind you so I’ll give you that…