Anyone can, though.
You want to really win at warfare? Be stand up. Fight back, learn, talk to people. Make friends. Build connections. Have people who ARE willing to come if you ask. Repay your debts. Be the guys they can rely on if they need you and they will come to help you when you are in need.
Diplomacy.
It’s really a thing.
onanistic roundtable of wankitude
You sir are a poet; and have been associating with @Ralph_King-Griffin for far too long
2 Likes
I’m not trying to win. I’m trying to talk sense into you, and, yes, I’m not succeeded at it.
I keep saying that objective based warfare works in Eve as shown by nullsec, and all I am doing is creating something of value for a hisec war decker which can be attacked. The proof that it works is in nullsec.
In this thread I linked a fight against CVA by my alliance after PL had been kicked out where they committed to defend something of value, a Fortizar. Why does hisec have to be different. And you get in return intel on activity from the CONCORD agent and a reduction in the cost of war decking major alliances.
There is now a consequence to war decking the wrong people, just as you impact peoples play by war decking them, defenders can now impact your play by destroying the Citadel where all your war decs are linked to. I really think it will create conflict.
I am talking about a content driver based on what works in nullsec and applying the same principal to hisec, what you talk about here is what you do as a matter of course if you are developing a working entity in Eve.
While I am at it, what is this mechanic with agents you are talking about? Might be hidden somewhere in the thread but I’d like to avoid having to scroll down that entire thread.
I am suggesting the following for tying war decs to citadels after CCP Fozzie at Fanfest said that they were going to tie war decs into structures.
I have suggested that there be a CONCORD agent in a defined citadel, which will allow the entity to declare more than 4 war decs, the agent will also give intel on location and activity of the targets if you go to speak to him in the citadel, and I would suggest that the cost to war dec major entities be reduced because of this.
The war decs will be tied to that agent in the citadel, should the citadel be destroyed then all the linked war decs will end apart from the four last ones applied and it will take a couple of days for an agent to come to a replacement citadel. So the citadel with the CONCORD agent is a meaningful strategic objective.
Does that explain it?
Drac, you know I may disagree with you but I really don’t have any kind of personal grudge.
That said, null and high are fundamentally different things, and applying null values is what buggered high sec wars to Sodom and back in the first place. Just, no.
Seriously, no.
Let structures be there as content drivers, but do NOT focus on them solely as THE thing that makes the war machine go. They, historically speaking, have been the single dullest aspect of high sec warfare in the history of forever. I wasn’t kidding about us getting together and listening to mongolian throat music while bashing POS’es FOR HOURS. If we didn’t like each other our alliance would have been shattered by that alone.
Null is for null. WH is for WH, and High Sec should be for High Sec. Different strokes for different folks.
2 Likes
Structures can already be shot. Sorry, but it’s not your creation when it’s already in the game.
I rather like and respect you.
Where, if you mean the watch list, that was discussed earlier in the thread, it was because people would not commit to fights when they saw all the enemies supers and titans logging in. That is why as part of my proposal I want the agent to give activity data. It is not a watch list, but it is like the locator agent on steroids… I listened to what people said about the pain without the watch list and you get something in return for this suggestion.
This makes it a content driver, and it has meaningful value which could result in a a defense, and that due to what it is there is a benefit in attacking it.
I have attacked quite a lot of structures and have done Entosis warfare too, but some of it can be fun, if people fight.
Still objective based warfare often produces fights.
What I am proposing is not currently in game, it is a CONCORD agent in a citadel which allows more than 4 wars. See above.
No, it is already in the game. One can shoot structures. You must have miss this somehow when you had your idea.
1 Like
I’m serious. You can already shoot structures. Ask others, I’m not trolling you.
1 Like
Here is your answer
PS I will just keep linking it to you, maybe it will sink in and more people will read it 
Thank you for the bumps…
It’s not needed at all. Just declare war and start shooting structures. It’s already in the game, mate.
1 Like
Next time you span it I will report you
Okay. Let’s talk objective based warfare.
Instead of focusing on structures for that objective, let’s take a step back.
Structure based warfare is a null thing, let’s let them have that.
Granted, some high sec wars will focus on structures… in particular those revolving around the removing of specific ones. However, this is less a thing now that you can plant one of these things nearly anywheres now, instead of orbiting a free moon. Yeah, that’s a thing too.
Let’s talk surrender terms. I/we/they shall prosecute violence upon you and yours until said terms are fulfilled.
Corporate ransoms.
Now there’s an objective. We fight you until you pay us X.
Failure to comply ensures a continuation of hostility.
Perhaps an advanced form of contract?
These are all alternatives to approaching a high sec problem with null sec oriented solutions.
Are you catching my drift here?
1 Like
You clearly must have misunderstood CCP Fozzie. We can already shoot structures. Why won’t you believe it?
And wanting to report me… please. Have a conversation first.
1 Like
Tbh, he just said that he was aware and enthusiastic about the idea. Not that they were going to do it 100%.
Interesting, you should follow the discussion in that thread I started, https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardec-war-room-suggestions-for-the-wardec-project
I especially like that you also tackled the watchlist problem with it. This is exactly what I have been trying to do on my side too.
Both wardecs and watchlist are linked, and thus both would benefit from some territoriality. I fail to understand why the people against structures can’t see that.
The best argument you could ever have to have CCP bring back Watchlist functionality is to offer that they be tied to a structure, this would add the gameplay/counter-gameplay CCP is looking for and killed the mechanic because of a lack of both.
1 Like
I have nothing against corporate ransoms and stuff as an idea, but my suggestion is creating a conflict driver which has value to be attacked and will in my opinion result in people coming after certain peoples citadels.