Granted we know you fully want to shut down any conversation on war being changed.
No. Iâm here to discuss it. You are not.
Really⌠well thenâŚ
The fact is that there can be zero consequence for any and all war decs. But the content of the game would be increased by adding in a small requirement. It doesnât have to be an upwell structure. It can cost exactly the same as it does right now, or even less because it puts a risk into the game. The only limit is what you can afford to do which is what the game allows right now.
So if the limits are changed from A to B but the costs are the same or less due to additional risk we are adding to the game.
So tell me why an item that has zero ability to be interacted with should be considered sufficient for declaring war? I donât see it. The only benefit you gain from war is not getting concorded. You donât gain intel on where targets are, or even targets to fight if they just log off and avoid the war by playing alts or dropping corp.
Why not give these people who declare war a benefit for actually fighting it and a risk to it?
Or we can refuse any ideas in full and echo chamber again.
1 Like
Nearly fell out of my chair reading this, null/low people deal with war decs by consistently whining about war decâs, hence this thread the the dozens of others moaning about the same subject that apparently âDoesnt effect themâ.
These are the same people that bring a 80 man fleet down pipes and moan our 10 man fleet docked up because we saw them rubbing their E-peen about 15 jumps away.
Absolutely nailed this reply @Omar_Alharazaad
1 Like
Because they donât want just an item tied to it, but they want it to mean the end of the war declaration when the item is being destroyed.
It turns from being an incentive to fight over an object into an item, which is only being used to end wardecs.
It will then be used to deny others their wars and so to restrict PvP.
Thatâs why I keep saying they can deploy multiples, redundant backups to continue a war.
Well if this item gives you intel on when targets are out there and allows you to fight then I have two very good reasons to start fighting. Or at least deny your intel device in the area I reside in and hope you leave me alone. Or I deploy my own intel device to gather when youâre enroute.
Of course all this is only possible if we add it to the game.
With or without war PVP will continue.
1 Like
No. I believe the intention is to end war declarations.
But when you think this is not the case then we also donât need to tie this as a condition in, do we?
I said absolutely nothing about blowing them up ending war. If you canât field a unit before the timeline ends to keep a unit in play then it ends. Risk. Intel gained. Want to continue the war? Deploy another one. Keep losing them? Thatâs the risk you took for deploying an object that allows you to declare war. Canât keep them out and alive at the end of your war? Guess you canât afford to declare war.
1 Like
Please get out with that non-existant argument, youâre just 
ing all over the thread at this point with your constant whine
Thatâs what weâve been talking here about. You should have read the thread before horsing around.
So say what it is you want exactly?
If itâs only to have agents in structures, which provide you with tools for finding war targets then thatâs cool.
If itâs meant to end war declarations then I guarantee you will it end up being used to deny others their fights.
And you canât even understand how wars can have zero consequences for both attackers and defenders.
1 Like
I can because I do both.
Another awful attempt at arguing
Gf
Doesnât have to be a structure. Can be a deployable like a mobile depo. Will gather intel for you over a given region. Requires refueling at the end of a week. CAN reduce costs for a war for anyone.
Itâs meant to promote fighting. Both defenders and attackers. If there isnât any fights we can call it fluffy bunny poops.
1 Like
Iâm fine with space cans and what not for intel. All cool ideas.
What is bad is to think something will promote fights when it can be used to end fights. You must know by now how this works⌠Or as they say, all plans fail on contact with the enemy. Once the fighting intensifies will one party always try to dominate the other side and always go to the extreme, and if this means they can use a mechanic to shut you out from fighting back or only to limit your ability to PvP then they will use exactly this to suppress you, because thatâs what dominance does.
1 Like
So you agree that it CAN be done and then disagree with the fact that it can be done in two posts. Good job agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.
It doesnât limit your ability to PVP. It puts a condition that isnât ISK on you declaring war. We can argue specifics about it all we want. Deploying the object flags ALL PERSONS in the CORP or ALLIANCE as war targets with a 24 hour startup so we donât change the beginning of war. It also flags you as war targets for them. Similar to how you currently can apply a timer to a character right now this will exist for a week. Defender will be knowing there is a target out there for them to locate but not told where. Intel from this object appears to the people interacting with the object in corp about your targets.
Now you drop corp you arenât protected from the war. Youâre still tracked for a minimum of a week. You are still free to blow up for a minimum of a week. This mechanic already exists in the game due to the fact that we HAVE timers. People jump into the corp? They pick up the timer. Leave? They canât join until the attacker ends the war.
Object gets destroyed? No more intel for the attacker. Lack of ability to deploy a redundant unit or a replacement before the timer ends results in the end of the war due to lack of war declaration object. Thatâs the attackers choice to deploy more or let it end. They do this by action rather than by just saying âBut we have more money.â This puts risk for declaring war into the game.
Pick a fight with someone whoâs got an intel device AND theyâre too strong for you to fight back because they will use their PVP ability suppress you? Thatâs always been a thing that could happen. It has happened in null sec on a most spectacular level where side A attacked and side B defended with a glorious thing they abused in their favor that exists in game mechanics. TIDI. It will continue to happen even if we donât change anything. Status quo for the sake of status quo is not an attempt to improve war or give anyone a reason to fight.
So lets give those people declaring war a cost that isnât just flat isk. A risk that object might be found and destroyed. A benefit for that object (watchlist) and a reason to keep that object by making the cost of that unit first a purchase from Concord (or a reseller on open markets because everybodyâs free to make a buck by being availble) and then only fueling it up. Your cost for the war is now lower. You gain a benefit. You take a risk to keep that war going. Defenders need to take a risk to disable your intel or just thru superior force of arms beat the hell out of your entire chain of everything to make you surrender. Because war isnât âyou canât shoot me, iâm waving a white flag over my head while I aim this rocket launcher at your tankâ and never should have been that way for Eve.
2 Likes
This is however the idea, which has been suggested here.
Again, adding tools to fight wars is fine (depending on how powerful their are ofc). Tying them to conditions which allow one side to suppress an opponent is not. It only ever leads to dominant groups becoming even more dominant. We donât need this.
Iâm happy to agree to disagree with you on this. You only will not sway me to think otherwise of this idea. It is bound to create complaints by weaker groups and theyâll be right about it once it gets used to suppress them.
Then status quo for the sake of status quo exists. Mercenarys canât be hired to find and destroy these objects. Every massive dominate isk group deserves to remain such because that is how it currently is. Thus what you are against already exists and will continue to exist in the format of ISK rather than RISK.
2 Likes
Sorry, but if youâre trying to drive out capitalism out of EVE then Iâm just going to wish you good luck with that. 
I donât agree with anything
Stop putting words in my mouth
1 Like
Denial isnât a river in egypt.