Implement wardec immunity bought from CONCORD, using the same formula used for wardec cost.
So 50mil a week for a <51 member Corp, scaling to 500mil a week for 2000 members.
Since that is considered fair for declaring a wardec, should be fair for immunity from them.
If its good for the goose…
If nothing else this can be a temporary solution till something more comprehensive is decided on and developed into the game.
It’s not about the citadel, it’s about his assets in the citadel. In fact, in my example, I wasn’t talking about some solo player who owns a cit on his own. I was talking about someone out in Null, part of a group, whose group gets attacked while he’s unavoidably out of the game for a while. RL happens, and CCP’s always been very good about giving players who’ve had life happen to them the ability to come back when their situation allows.
In an old-style player-dropped Outpost, the assets were safe even if his group lost control of the station. While Citadels were just a replacement for Starbases, that wasn’t an issue. Now that they’ve replaced Outposts, though, that changes the math some. This is especially true considering that anyone whose assets were in an Outpost now has assets in a citadel, potentially one they can’t get into… assuming those cits haven’t been taken down or destroyed already.
The Asset Safety system can be changed so that there is no free “grace” period, and all transferred assets have to be bought out with isk.
This can be scaled according to where the destroyed structure is, for example 75% in NS, 50% in LS and 25% in HS of asset value for asset recovery.
You’re rather missing the point. The issue in the post you’re responding to isn’t whether or not to charge for asset safety, it’s why simply removing asset safety completely is unfairly detrimental to players CCP has traditionally given a way to return to the game after unexpected RL situations have forced them away for a time. It’s one thing to say ‘well, you’re out in nullsec, you know the risks’, but to give someone additional difficulties in an online activity they pay for after life offline has already caused unpredicted hardship… that’s not right.
I understand that.
Removal of the free grace period doesnt change that.
Their assets are still safe if they are unable to defend or move them due to being away from EVE.
Yes, I realize that. You’ve essentially responded to a post saying ‘You shouldn’t change the rules in the middle of a game of football’ with a statement that good referees are important. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
I was expanding on the discussion you two where having.
One flaw in the free grace period mechanic, is it means players can choose not to defend the structure or move assets out, because it will be done for free for them thanks to the free grace period. This dramatically reduces incentive to defend or ship your assets out.
It also reduces incentive to destroy structures, as the enemy takes no substantial asset losses, due to free asset recovery.
Thats my input. I neither agree with removing asset safety entirely as one side said, nor keeping it as it is, as you said.
Eh, I don’t see it as terribly likely that people will want to have their belongings in a lowsec station if they can avoid it. The problem with lowsec stations is that everything from the cit will go to the same one… so people can just hunt you down. You’ll need cynos to get JFs in, and those can be killed. Will it be a serious deterrent? No, but it’s a hassle, and people will do the minimal work to evac their crap on their own to a more distant system, rather than put up with the hassle—especially since they’ll be relocating anyway.
If the purpose of the mechanic is to protect players who have to step away from Eve, yet you want players to still have an immediate impact on a conflict destroying an enemy’s station, the there could be a sliding cost system based on time to prevent asset recovery easily or rapidly without cost. Asset safety could be:
0-6 days: no recovery possible, items frozen
7-13 days: items recoverable for 90% of their value
14-30 days items recoverable for 75% of their value
Each month after, cost decreases 10% until a minimum of 15% at 6 months or whatever.
And, as others suggested, some of that ISK could be given to aggressor somehow although how this is done seems like it could be complicated. The simplest would be immediately give 15% of the value to… someone. That is low enough it can’t be exploited and would give immediate value to the aggressor, and the items could only re-enter the economy when the asset safety fee was paid, sort of like a pawn-broker.
So we get information that says war decs are causing massive issues in player retention and you suggest an idea for making even more wardecs happen? This seems… A little counter productive.
You seem to misunderstand how the mechanics currently work.
The assets can still be transferred to another structure in the system after 5 days, and before 20 days have elapsed, for free, as it is now in the mechanics.
They are only automatically moved to LS if you dont transfer them in-system to another structure, within 5-20 days, as is now in the mechanics.
Currently, it costs nothing to recover assets from another structure in the same system, if transferred there by players through asset safety.
In everycase in the change, you will have to pay to recover them there.
Asset recovery will thus always cost isk but not the asset transfer.
Asset transfer, and asset recovery are two different things. Transfer remains free, recovery does not.
And the cost of that recovery is currently far too low, and can be zero, at worst.
Yes.
Helps to think of it as if there was an NPC corp with the business of clearing assets out of structures being destroyed and moving them to safety, and then sells them back to the owners at a profit.
If youve seen the Storage Wars series, sort of like they buy out abandoned storage on firesale, and then sell them back to the owner at a profit.
I like your sliding cost suggestion also.
The asset safety idea?
That was an idea for asset safety, not on wars, but the problem isn’t that there are too many wars or fights over structures - it is that people who don’t want to fight are being chased out of the game for a week or forever. I’m sure CCP would love ideas that get people really fighting over structures more.
But if you want me to argue how it would help wars, giving ‘objectives’ like so many people are asking for would focus aggressor attention on specific targets, like a structure, and away from random mass deccing would protect the smaller groups without structures. No matter what system we get, structures are still going to be vulnerable to attack, and I think any changes that focus wars more on them is a plus, not a minus.
But really, the idea was conceived of without a thought to highsec wars. If CCP wants, they could apply the time-based pawn-broker idea only to nullsec, or make it work slightly differently across the various sectors of space much like vulnerability times already do. It would make sense that perhaps the decay time or cost would be less in highsec since it is suppose to be safer.
As a relatively new player I’m still figuring a lot of the mechanics out, what I’m enjoying, what I don’t enjoy, etc. I’m not a massive PVP’er, I started playing EVE for the exploration and well SPACE. 
I think a possible solution to Wardecs is that a Corp that is Wardec’d must renew the Wardec when the original one runs out. As I understand it, when my Corp is Wardec’d, there’s a week timer on the Wardec. So, if I’m into the fight, I choose to renew the Wardec for the next week, and then the other Corp does the same, until we’re bored of it or done fighting. This could also broadly apply to Alliances to avoid the Corps in an Alliance Wardeccing me in turn. This way I can PVP if I want, or with a bit of planning and preparation, opt-out of the PVP by not returning the Wardec in week 2. Some form of timer on renewing this could also be implemented, to enable a new Wardec to be issued after a couple of weeks, 6 - 8 seems a reasonable suggestion. In that time the Wardec’d corp could choose to bolster defences, implement strategies to mitigate, etc.
As an aside, I’ve grown quite used to the risk, and know that every time I undock, I risk my ship or clone, and that risk increases as I travel into lower and lower sec space. This has become quite a thrill, to figure out how to get around gate camps, fit and train for better ships with higher survival chances, etc. So, the element of risk inherent in EVE needs to remain in all security sectors, but some level of choice on my part ITO how I want to participate in some activities should be offered.
Currently, no consent is required for you to be wardecced by someone else.
The wardec pretty much automatically renews till the aggressor stops the wardec renewal, doesnt have money to pay it, surrenders, you surrender, the war is made mutual (removing cost) or either their or your corp is disbanded.
If your corp has <51 members, it only costs them 50mil per week, no matter how big they are.
They can thus keep the wardec going on you as long as they want.
Thanks, that gives me a lot more context. And at 50mil a week, seems easy to maintain indefinitely, even for me as an individual. If, like me, you want to mostly do your own thing and since I’m not much of a joiner, I created my own Corp, this’ll probably break me too …
Yes, its peanuts, and it doesnt matter how many members they have against you, solo.
And you will probably not be wardecced by just one Corp or Alliance, but several, so you are potentially up against hundreds to thousands of players hunting just you, costing them only 50mil a week, per Corp or Alliance.
Thats how stupid the system is at this moment.
Fun times.
Its definitely unbalanced.
Yes, very.
You used the right word, “unbalanced”.
This isnt about “fairness” as some would mistakenly say.
Its about imbalance.
Ive been trying to propose Corps can buy wardec immunity, at the same cost it costs to wardec them.
So for you, it would cost 50mil a week, so that nobody can wardec you.
I think it’s also about a modicum of choice. I get that it’s a sandbox, I get that it’s a “harsh” game, but new players tend to have a lot of catching up to do before they’re ready for all of it. Different players will learn, adapt, assimilate faster than others, but there’s not a lot of pacing. One thing that I always thought WoW got right was how they leveled the playing field at each expansion. I don’t know how or if this is appropriate for EVE, but it definitely makes it easier to start playing WoW than EVE.
Wardec Insurance. 