Seems to me like sophistic rhetoric.
Structures are content.
Tying wardecs to structures will create content, as you will have to interact with them.
If you worry about access, having the structures needed for war be different, less expensive, huge, hard to destroy, etc… can be done.
It’s not that complicated.
It’s actually called “making a difference”. When one cannot make a difference then, yes, everything will look like it’s content.
We already have wardecs and these are a limitation of what is possible, because without wardecs will CONCORD intervene in high-sec. Only in low- and null-sec do war declarations have little to no meaning.
Tying wardecs to structures only adds a further limitation. So even if you were to count high-sec war as content then you’re still only limiting content. Yet, high-sec war isn’t content, it’s a limitation, which only exists in high-sec.
It may only seem like high-sec war is giving you content when really you just haven’t been in low- and null-sec where you’re truly unhindered in whom you can fight.
If one would adapt to your logic of everything being content, then low- and null-sec war would be less content since it has less or no limitations. And this cannot be right.
Or let me put it this way. Not everything in math is numbers, not everything on a car is tyres, not everything on a gun is loud, and not everything in a game is content.
Don’t be ridiculous. Setting up rules and mechanics for the sake of settling up rules and mechanics is clearly a good thing.
everyone can afford to destroy a sandcastle,
but not everyone wants to be forced to use a >insert tool here< to do it 
that simply takes the sand away from the sandbox
The issue is of course blanket war decs, yes it is a limitation to the number of war decs, but if you want to do more than 4 war decs, you have a point of vulnerability on which consequences of your decision can be applied, which will create content.
Of course I thought it through, the question is of course how many people will actually do something and how this will change the makeup of hisec. That is what I mean by see what happens next. I do believe that some nullsec alliances might actually do something about war decs, which would be a good thing in terms of putting pressure on hisec blanket war decs. In other words player action changes the power and ability of these entities.
I will push my alliance to create a group to go after hisec war deckers. I also believe that this will have a knock on affect in other areas.
Eve is also about consequences for your decisions, but currently there are no realistic consequences possible against hisec blanket war deckers, and my suggestion will do just that. It was very noticeable that some of the war deckers in the discord reacted with fear that they would be dominated by nullsec alliances. Whereas now they have almost total impunity…, their decision to war dec more belligerent nullsec alliances could have severe consequences… That is Eve!
Oh so you’re waiting for a nerf to the merc lifestyle to go after them?
That sounds more casual than what you’re accusing casuals of doing 
Oof
Why is it a nerf?
I just went to your charcter, checked what alliance you were in and saw you have no active war decs and have two pending, you would not be affected by this change. And I know you do targeted war decs, you hunt. Do you do more than 4 war decs?
Does not make any sense at all that comment.
And why is that a problem? It seems you completely miss why this is actually happening. Blanket wardecs are not a problem by it self. The thing people are complaining about is that the hunting gameplay sucks and the most accessible content for wardecs is currently to just dec everyone and it’s mother and camp gates.
Now you are trying to modify wardecs to dis-incentivise that by adding some more obstacles. Why? It’s like trying to help a homeless person by taking away his cardboard box because you think it is horrible he has to sleep in that thing.
If wardecs started to suck without the mechanic itself changing when the watchlist was removed then they can be made better again by leaving the mechanic as it is but add tools that actually enable other forms of using wardecs.
I don’t know what you even expect will happen if you couple them with structures. I say nothing will happen at all. It’s just a waste of time, a complete miss-direction, a wast of opportunity to actually add something which may incentivise actual gameplay.
Go and look at a blanket war dec and see how many war decs have 0 kills. If a war dec is to create PvP content then it is failing
You seem to miss the point I am making obviously.
Well go and ask people who do targeted war decs and are doing fine with it. War deckers were spoilt by the watch list and that is their issue. However my suggestion includes the CONCORD agent giving them when they interact in the citadel location and activity data.
You call that an obstacle, it is nothing and they have 4 war decs anyway without it.
To create content that is why.
What a bizarre analogy…
Makes no sense, blanket war decs were happening and were the preferred approach before the watch list change.
I have suggested what will happen, consequences…
That is your opinion, others in the war dec discord did not like the fact that their game play could be impacted by this idea, it was fear of consequences from war decking someone who would go after them. At the moment they have no consequences. Change can be frightening, I know…, but good content can come out of this and in my opinion it will push more towards less and more targeted war decs.
The point of the blanketed wardecs is not that each one of them creates content but that all together create at least some. Not sure why that is not obvious to you.
Maybe
Different people have different ideas about fun. The removal of the watchlist has almost killed targeted wardecs, so it seems MOST people don’t think this is a fun activity anymore and that is the actual issue. Ignoring that and just pointing out that SOME are fine with suffering helps no one in this discussion, so why do you even bring it up?
Watchlist only for wartargets would be fine, but why only with citadels. It makes just no sense at all to couple this to structures.
Yeah, if you want of have more than 5 wardecs it is obviously an obstacle for no good reason.
Nothing you proposed except the reintroduction of the watchlist has even remotely the chance if creating any content.
I highly doubt this will have any consequences at all. Do you really think there will be an uprising of carebears who go after the citadels of highly organised wardecers?
And even if someone would go after those structures, all it will probably introduce, given someone cares at all and not just drops another one 30j away, is some shitty timer tanking tactics with the wardec since the attacker can just stop paying the bil and there is no way you can kill those structure in under a week.
That is obviously why they do it.
And yet that is not the case, go speak to Kannibal Kane, and that ex-Vendetta guy in Gallante space who just do it.
The watch list was too powerful and they relied on it too much, that is evident.
Because the watch list was too powerful and they relied on it too much and did not do selective war decs. But I am not ignoring it, the CONCORD agent would have the ability to give location and activity data. Why do you keep ignoring that aspect?
I am adding real consequences.
I looked at a number of people who did targetted war decs, I never saw more than 4 war decs at any point of time.
That is an opinion, my opinion is that it creates a strategic vulnerability that can be attacked and this exists in nullsec and content is created from it. Which I proved above.
I think some nullsec alliances will start the ball rolling…, after that more aggressive people in hisec might gang up on a war decker and that is content. But if a couple of nullsec alliances go after them that is content and after a defeat or two they have in mind consequences from war decs.
Then they will lose all but 4 of their war decs, in that they stop there and then. That will cost them, next part is that there is a delay of a couple of days for the agent to get assigned, then they can start again. It is not meant to block them totally, one has to get the balance right. The mechanism is designed to create player punishment on overdoing the war decs.
The week issue to kill a citadel is an issue with one week wardecs, but either the person attacking the citadel will do their own war dec or perhaps others will finish it off. Better still have an option for the defender to extend the war dec to enable the citadel to be blapped.
And you say people do not go after structures because no reason, but dum dum did and this is one of the kills he is on:
Nice drop…
If you are a solo hunter (or small group hunter) then having 4 or 5 wardecs only is fine. However if you’re a group of 30 or 40 people that’s nowhere near enough. You act as though hisec wardeccers went to blanket deccing out of choice. It costs an absolute fortune to have 100 wars running, particularly when that usually includes the likes of Goons, TEST or PH.
In order to have content for that number of people, under current game mechanics you have to blanket wardec.
Tying wardecs to structures will only increase the structure grind which nobody really wants. Saying that “oh, well everything is tied to structures in nullsec” is irrelevant. Structures are tied to ownership in nullsec and are there to make it difficult to flip sov. It’s a different situation and is not the solution.
And those are mostly solo hunters. Hunting is not a large group activity. It happens in the larger groups, but you don’t get fleets of 30 or 40 out hunting in hisec. In order to support the content for large player groups, you have to have larger numbers of wars.
This is the point I’ve been making all along, but has been ignored. You can’t change established game mechanics on a whim saying “don’t be so negative, it might improve things”. That’s just stupid game design. You can never predict how players will react to a change, particularly in EVE where players go out of their way to break game mechanics.
Change for the sake of change is just stupid. And demanding change because you don’t like how someone else chooses to have fun is plain petulant.
I can see it happening for the first few weeks of the change, but after that they’ll get bored. Hell, PH were getting bored of defending their own market hub in Perimeter.
Ultimately, the biggest issue I can see with changing wardecs is that it will drive players away from the game. CCP should not be looking to introduce new game mechanics which will discourage large groups from flying together. Whether you feel that is a loss or not is irrelevant, it should be an issue for CCP. Most people I know in hisec have at least 4 accounts (some have substantially more). If, say, half of the current wardec players decide that enough is enough and leave that game, that’s a substantial loss of monthly income.
Hell, even take that out of the equation and lets talk about the loss of the isk sink that is pipe and hub camping. Billions of isk a day are destroyed in hisec through wardecs. Directed wardecs will never replace that.
I can’t speak for Dom on this, but there are such things as destruction contracts…someone paying you to take down a citadel tends to give you a good reason to do it.
This is exactly what I meant with that you didn’t think this through.
I tell you what will happen. There will be far less wardecs in high-sec and only more erosion of PvP. Do remind yourself that this is still a PvP game you’re playing.
Spamming wardecs only means the aggressor will not only have more targets, but also become a target to many others. So there is nothing wrong with it and needs no fixing.
You need to look at why they’re doing it. It’s because too many are evading the PvP. What you need to do is to remove those who don’t want to or cannot PvP from the corporate warfare.
Hence I’m saying the best way to fix this is to introduce social corporations (or “mini NPC corporations”).
The last thing we should do is to destroy the PvP in EVE, don’t you agree?
And the 30 or 40 people should be able to defend their ability to blanket war dec.
I don’t care about whether they want to or not and I think the cost of war decking large nullsec alliances should go down in conjunction with my suggestion as part of the balancing act.
Perhaps the issue is wanting to be in a big group doing war decs in hisec which is mostly made up of one man corps due to war decs.
Not at all, it creates content as in being a target of value which can be blown up or defended, it works in nullsec and will work in hisec.
War decs were designed to enable people to go after another corp or alliance in hisec for reasons. the consequence of ganging up to be the biggest and scariest war decker is taht you have an issue finding targets especially in an area of the game which is mostly made up of one man corps.
You chose to be in bigger groups don’t you?
Oh come now, I have put forward and argued proposition with balance factors such as a sort of watchlist and reduced cost for war decking large nullsec alliances, and you call it on a whim, really…
So what, that is like saying there is no point in planting anything in your garden because for four months it is too cold.
Salty, again I have laid out why and how it works, and you say on a whim and petulant to boot, seriously mate man up.
That is different. In any case the hisec mercs and the defenders were defeated and the content dried up, you of course will do the same most likely however it still will hurt.
Is that a defence when you complain about players complaining about being driven away from the game by war decs? Seriously…
They are adding consequences and impacting blanket war decs, which were never really the intention of the design of war decs.
Oh come on…
I think you will still do that, are you that much of a defeatist, you tell me that people won’t bother, and then you say it will drive people out of the game. You are all over the place, yes change is scary, but you can deal with it. I think you can handle this and if not pixels get blown up…
So you back me up there are reasons to kill structures in hisec.
Wow sweeping statement that.
Yes and most of those will be the zero kill war decs and people not logging in while war decked, is that a loss? No PvP happens there does it unless you count not logging in as PvP.
Almost 2k kills on Dracvlad…, think that answers that one…
At the moment there is very little that one can do that is worth bothering with, this is actually why I am putting forward this way of doing it. I think that CCP might do some stupid capture the flag bullshite with an escrow account, which would make me laugh…
I know all this, it is goddamn lazy and awful target selection. So you war dec people who are just doing indy and wonder why they don’t fight? It sort of gets me a bit to think that they would not evade the PvP?
Will make no difference at all.
My suggestion will increase PvP and reduce pointless never going to happen blanket war decs.
You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. I quote your previous comment again, and please do take the time to read what you wrote yourself here:
When this is a question to you then because you have no answer for it.
I’m going to ignore your comments for a while, because you’re struggling with the discussion. Not only do you not know what you’re writing, but you’re also responding to comments not as a whole, but sentence by sentence.
So should I do a straw poll of all nullsec alliances to answer that? 
How long is a piece of string?
Do you see any irony on asking me that and telling me I don’t know what I am talking about? I PvP, I have blown up citadels, I have done war decs, I have been war decked in hisec and I am currently in a nullsec PvP alliance where people have said there is no reason to go after war deckers…
But I don’t know what I am talking about 
I have no definite answer for it as currently there is nothing to indicate exactly what would happen and how many people would go for it. Seriously asking me that and telling me I don’t know, well yeah…
You are struggling with this discussion not me and asking me an impossible question as a way to run away, please do.
When you speak to people who have war decs most say there is no point in going after war deckers, my proposal creates something worth going after. Now lets see if those people who said that will put their money where their mouth is or not?
Oh and I should add that I feel that hisec is too far gone to develop anything muscular…
No, as per CCPs words no reasons are required.
Everywhere in EVE, players are encouraged to band together in larger and larger groups. Penalising people for doing so would go against everything the game is based on.
But your logic is fundamentally flawed. You have laid out why you believe it will work. Unfortunately, as many have already pointed out besides just me, your proposal has so many holes in it you could drive supers through them.
Telling me to “man up” is just deflecting from the fact that you just don’t like how I play the game. Ultimately, that’s your problem. You’re an elitist who believes that anyone who doesn’t play the game how you think they should is lesser.
Believe what you will about that…from what I can see, there is still a citadel from Ichooseyou (the defender) in Perimeter.
No, I said there is no evidence that wardecs are driving people from the game. None at all. I’ve not seen a shred that shows people leave the game because of wardecs.
Not a defeatist, a realist. I don’t live in a cloud cuckoo land where I believe everything I wish for will come true.
No, I don’t back you up. Your point was that people will just randomly decide to kill structures for fun. That’s not backed up by any evidence. Structures are generally killed in hisec because of grudges or competition for markets. These people generally hire mercs to do their dirty work.
So what?
You would be penalising yourself by war decking someone who could blow your citadel up.
Haven’t seen anything like that, just people saying don’t like, don’t want, people will leave the game, how do you know what will happen. Seem rather vague and wishy washy to me…
When I said this in the war dec discord a number of the war deckers did not like the fact that nullsec alliances could come in and blap them. That is why I say man up, are you the same as them, man up and tell me if that is the case or not, because I get the feeling that this is the case…
What and you are throwing the word carebear around. I am pushing a mechanic to enable consequences for you war decking the wrong people , something that will not kill your group but could hurt and result in blown up pixels.
So I am elitist for that… wow
You lost a battle and stopped fighting, I saw it go down…
What about this:
Well they do, after the change made to citadels in making the shield timer active all the time and low power mode and the timer being set to a certain period a lot got blown up. Come on.
My suggestion is not to kill the structure for fun, it is to kill the structure to end the war dec and make them decide not to war dec my alliance again because they will lose pixels in space. CONSEQUENCES
If you haven’t seen that then this thread is a waste of time.
It’s not the case.
I’ve never said carebear once in this thread. Consequences are currently in place as already talked about. Whether those who are wardecced decide to actually play is their problem, not the wardeccers. You’re elitist for the reasons I’ve mentioned previously.
We lost a battle and continued fighting for months after. As I said, if the defender lost, then why do they still have a market hub in Perimeter.
What about it? The text underneath is irrelevant to your quote. And not for the first time either…
Consequences are already there, you are just refusing to see it. Mass wardecs leaves the wardeccers vulnerable to attack. Whether or not anybody exploits that is not the problem of the wardec group.
Anyway, I’ve wasted too much of my life on this thread. I’ve made my point and this is just going round in circles. Refuse to accept the criticism of your ideas if you like, I really don’t care anymore.