This is true. Some, not all will take that option. Some will though and for those that want to fight back there is no viable, meaningful way to do it.
So you bash their POCOs, then what? The war is still on. The attackers will still wait for easy targets, and will replace the POCOs like nothings happened.
Lets be honest here - there is already a structure in place. POCOs are that. Just have to identify poco holding corp⌠and dec it. And bash it. And then fight off your defense fleet. And I will be honest as well â most people who complain about wars wonât bother with doing this. As you say, it would be same with new structure.
It wouldnât be interesting at all. PVP would be reduced to 1 man fleets with 24+ alts all looking to leech that sweet PVP reward goodness. It would be a disaster.
The CSM minutes were talking about young corporations and new player retention, which has nothing to do with 60 man fleets. Most of the corporations on the statistics probably didnât even have 60 members.
Truth hurts, my points are valid which is why you have to attack my English instead.
How will they replace pocos now that they have to bash your poco? You did place poco after blowing theirâs, right? You see, you do this to pull them off the station game so that the fight is in a more balanced territory as they are masters of station games. [never fight in territory that gives very big advantage to enemies]. You could organize 60 man fleet already ⌠if you tried to do so. I fear though it would be more akin to GOTG - useless coalition full of internal squabbles.
If there are structures to bash then and an alliance war decs over 100 newbro corps then I can see them joining forces to form 60 man fleets. Right now there is no incentive for defenders to work together as it acheives nothing.
My guess is wardecâing corps are not making a most of their ISK from PI. The loot they could miss out on by leaving the station and gates to defend the POCO will probably be more valueable than the POCO itself.
I highly doubt they would be too bothered to defend the POCO and theyâll just let you shoot it till you get bored. Plus POCOâs reinforce anyway so youâd have to come back the next day. Iâd say war dec structures should have no reinforcement timers if it was up to me.
Do you think this doesnât happen in EVE? Iâm just curious where you stand on this, as I run a sub-org within the Imperium that specialized primarily in flying Logistics ships. Similarly, there are organized groups that specialize in other roles: Linkswarm, Recon, Scouts, GSOL (true logistics work, not fleet tenders), Bomberwaffe, BlackOps, and so on.
These happen most often when that group or nation appears to be largely unopposed, or its populace feels no real connection to âopposingâ those external to them⌠or when their attempts to define an external âotherâ are contested by other members of their society. In these cases, the rise of an external threat almost always causes an abandonment of internal tensions until that threat is dealt with.
Sure, but that happens largely when people donât feel like they have the ability to âget more friendsâ.
I think itâs more than that, but also exactly what you say with the first sentence of this graf: people donât want to lose everything. But by that, I donât mean âlose every fightâ. I mean âlose all their stuffâ. In other games, you lose a match, you start the next match with all your stuff. You donât lose your gear if a WoW Battleground or Arena goes badly. You donât lose the ability to field a tank or ship in World of WarWhatevers between rounds.
People in EVE can (not all of them do) learn to play for keeps, and take that very seriously, because you can have your stuff taken away from you. And they donât like having stuff taken away from them[1].
⌠mean that once the cyno is up, everyoneâs sitting waiting for 5 minutes because the destination system is in heavy time dilation already. And god forbit youâre the second capital fleet coming in, because the 2-10 second difference in when your guys click âjumpâ means that fleet thatâs had forever to spot your cyno is waiting for you to come trickling in.
It would mean battleship fleets bring a couple of Nestors along, though, so they can jump immediately⌠and then pull their guns out of cargo to fit them.
Well then. I dare you to try it 
Give it a try, Come on. Show us you would be ready to shoot at their âwar structureâ by reinforcing and then blowing up one of their pocos. Surely it is not that hard, right? Especially if they donât show up to defend you. Show us.
No. they arenât. You are defending the status quo which is pointless as, bottom line, the system is broken and itâs going to change.
The only people who donât want any change are people who are members of, or linked to griefing⌠I mean war deccing organisations. You lot have had it your way for way too long. Iâm so glad CCP and the CSM are on the verge of doing something about it.
No, CCP acknowledge the fact the Loki need tweaks, but for some reason they donât do them. Method is fine and unbiased. You just canât stand the fact that it is better than 10 people choosen in âdemocraticâ vote by minority of playerbase.
I wrote it one more time. The fact Loki is unbalanced was not focus group fault, it was CCPs because they already have data but donât do anything about it.
T3Cs are actually in a much better place now than they were previously. The real problem with trying to balance something whose main advantage is versatility is that you have to balance it against everything, in every role it can possibly fill. Right now, the Tenguâs tanky, and not bad for PvE, but it kinda sucks for any large-scale use other than an FC ship. And the Proteus was so dominant, they beat that thing into the dirt (which, you know, was a knee-jerk reaction).
The Legion could use a little bit of tweaking still, as itâs in a relatively good place, until you want it to do more than 1-2 specialized roles (I do miss anti-support Legions), but the Lokiâs probably right about where they should be. Maybe reduce the damage bonuses on the offensive subs a little to pay for the flexibility, but they still lose to massed battlecruisers, which is where an advanced cruiser should start to fall short.
Again, you run into the Muninn/Hurricane issue: similar direction in multiple branchings leads to similar results with different costs and barriers to entry. Lokis are easier to get into than Muninns, ironic as it is.
Again what would be the point? Even when we killed PIRAT here and here we felt great for like a hour but the war didnât end. We still had to put up with station games for the rest of the week.
There is very little point killing POCOs. No point at all.
In terms of the Ferox: if you have two fleets with equal numbers of opposing ships and full skills, one with the Ferox and the other with any HAC capable of long range: which will win?
The argument that: the ship is cheaper so more people can fly it and swarm the other fleet into oblivion so it must be nerfed is a poor argument⌠plus it flies against actual usage of cheap and innovative tech in real life. And, ironically, flies against the history of your own CFC history of using cheap ships to swarm the enemy.
The real test is: with everything being equal: is X better than Y? Maybe the issue with HACs need more love, not nerfing a flexible and accessible platform⌠unless it posses a threat to the current Bloc powers so then, yes, it MUST be nerfed to keep the status quo. 
Think about my statement here for a minute, here I state that war mechanics are the problem and that linking to structures would not solve the status quo on player retention, basically saying removing war mechanics is the only option. Then you started arguing with me about it.
You arguing with me make you the one defending war mechanics 
Just ask CCP when loki nerfs. Ask them every day untill they deliver. I am starting to believe there is no other way than pestering them daily untill they do something.
Itâs actually hard to say, since weâve never seen a case of âall other things being equalâ, and never will. Itâs impossible. Youâll never have equally-skilled FCs on both sides having equally-good days, etc etc, and the first mistake changes the math. But if we look at things on paperâŚ
The Ferox has better range, and slightly higher DPS at range. It also has the edge in ânormalâ tank. The Muninn, OTOH, is faster, and does its damage in much more powerful volleys that are much harder for Logi to protect against. It also has the ADC, and the ADC can radically swing a fight in favor of the Muninn, if the pilot is competent.
Honestly, equal numbers, equal skill levels in use⌠Iâd give the Muninn the edge, by a not-insignficant margin.
Edit: Is it a âLiterally 5 times the costâ margin? I donât know. Obviously, 5 Feroxes beat 1 Muninn. But, as Iâve said about my own absurdly-expensive logistics ships, a ship you donât lose is a lot cheaper to fly than 3 you do.
Let me be clear to you then. Iâm not suggesting removing war deccing from the game altogether.
The last thing I want is to make HS safe for care bear corps to become untouchable. But the current mechanics of war decs are too far skewed towards attackers with no real means for defenders fighting back.
All I see from you is âthis wont workâŚâ and âthat wonât workâŚâ. Show me where youâve made any positive contribution to the discussion. Not a single idea for how to fix things just throwing sand in peopleâs eyes and saying there is no point to change as change wont solve anything, ergo, maintain the status quo.
Again IMHO, a structure to fight over that will give defenders a way to end the war which, for a lot of corps, will be incentive enough to form up a decent fleet and/or band together with other war decâd corps. It will force attackers to leave the station undock and gatecamps in order to defend them.
Frankly I donât care if its some other means that ends up achieving this end. So long as something changes in the current system which is little more than griefing + killboard padding with almost no risk whatsoever to the attackers.
If this is the case, then destruction of the structure should cause the 24-hr âWar is endingâ window. Otherwise, when you get groups to band together to fight back, as soon as they blow up one structure, their little band starts to fall apart, and they canât keep clearing the attackerâs structures.
Actually, the real problem is trying to balance everything to begin with. The history of warfare and technology is newer tech being âbetterâ than older tech. No one thinks a Trebuchet should be modernized to compete against a short range tactical missile (or the missle ânerfedâ to make the trebuchet competitive). But sometimes older can be better - the Sherman tank was used by the Israelis to defeat the newer Arab tanks being used against them - because they could lower their turrets further allowing the Sherman tank to fire over dunes without exposing as much as their opponents tank. Now, had they been on flat terrain, the story would have been different.
As with all warfare: adapt, improvise, improve, and survive.
There is also this: the cost of specialization will result in inflexibility. The Ferox has some specialization but not a lot compared to a HAC. In a one on one fight will the Ferox win or the HAC? Depends on how both are used. So maybe the issue is not so much the flexibility of the Ferox but poor decisions by the fleet commanders and alliances for using a specialized ship outside of itâs specialization and in insufficient numbers with pilots lacking the piloting expertise to fully utilize the ship.