Nothing happens.
If they fail to destroy it, the wars continue, as enabled by the structure.
This was clear in my previous response if you think about it.
2 Likes
So what? Letâs say I have 1 structure. Letâs say that structure costs 900 million, and upgrading it to run 10 wars costs 100 million. That structure, because of the length of the timer, will live at least a week. Ok. So my operating costs for the wars now including another 1b per 10 wars, per week.
So I increase my prices by 150 million a week for a war dec. I am now making more money than I was before.
It would cost nowhere near that, so as to still enable 1man corps to initiate wardecs.
Itâs an example to make the math easy. 
Right. Nothing happens. So now the PvErs, who didnât want to fight have lost ships, are still wardecâd, and have been shown âfight back and youâll lose. You cannot win thisâ.
Does that help retention or harm it?
I see, seems this simple fix is getting more complicated.
Lets be real the structure wouldnât cost alot (probably same price as a POCO) and considering the war payments work on a weekly basis they will probably be ending/ended before the final reinforcement timer.
So were not actually losing anything other then structure costs. It would just be a massive inconvenience for all parties involved as your show up for a timer, to a corporation will zero members and only a structure to shoot at. Were even be nice and sit next to it to taunt you.
It was a â â â â example, and ridiculous, per the reason I stated.
Use your own brain for a bit.
1 Like
You lose all wardecs when the structure is destroyed, as victory to all defenders whether or not the participated in its destruction.
1 Like
How about you use yours. It doesnât matter what the actual #s are, no matter how much the structure costs, the war dec groups will simply figure out âwe normally run X wars. X wars cost Y ISKâ. Then theyâll just increase their rates by some amount greater than Y/X ISK, so that no matter how many of these things get blown up, theyâre never losing money on the deal.
They donât care. They only care about getting paid. They will just put the wardec back up with a new structure and bill the client.
1 Like
You overlooked the part where the wardec structure has to be upgraded for additional wardecs, and where the cost of wardec is related to how many Omegas in that Corp, vs the target Corp.
It will still be cheap for small corps to wardec a few others, especially if they are big ones, but it will be very expensive for large corps to wardec many smaller corps, both in upgrades to a vulnerable wardec structure, and in wardec declaration cost.
1 Like
A)Not gonna happen.
B)No, I havenât. Theyâll just assume a standard target size thatâs larger than most highsec corps (150 members, FOR EXAMPLE), and base their rates on that.
Says you.
You are just one pleb.
1 Like
Seriously. You act like any of these things are not normal, existing considerations all across all kinds of service industries. Operating costs and scaling costs are known behaviors. This is how this â â â â works, every day, in every developed country of the world.
1 Like
Its a valid option to fix the issue of players dropping out at alarming rates due to wardecs, as stated a priority by CCP and CSM.
Many have supported this for years, including CSM to some extent.
1 Like
Itâs a self-defeating proposal that will not fix anything. I really wish it wasnât. I wish it was something that would work. Something amazingly simple like âslap a structure on itâ would be wonderful if it worked.
But it wonât. And you can repeat your platitudes about âending the warâ and how itâs supposed to make it harder for wardec corps all you like, but itâs just gonna serve as a tar baby, and it wonât cost the wardec corps a dime.
3 Likes
Okay, I think weâre done here. He refuses to answer nine out of ten questions or criticisms with his plan, and on top of that doesnât seem to understand how fleet fights actually work, how structure timers work, how bears and PvPers demonstrably work, and what the actual end-goal of all this is supposed to be.
2 Likes
It will fix it very well, as explained earlier, and supported by community members and some CSM members.
1 Like
One thought: Where is the structure going to be deployed? Whichever system it is in will just be gatecamped. If itâs the home system of the defenders, then that will equally be gate camped. The end result will be the same.
Iâm not against a structure being required, but only if it adresses the problem. Iâm not sure it does.
2 Likes
Proximity and location is an issue.
But CCP and CSM can figure that out.
The point is that wardecs are issued through a destructible structure, thus giving defenders a means to end wars by destroying it.
1 Like
A) You are in denial and have no idea how these things will actually play out.
B) Being supported by community members doesnât make it a good idea. Entosis Interceptors were supported by some community members, too.
C) One CSM suggested the idea during a brainstorming session. Another had a vague âtie it to structuresâ suggestion. Donât try to make this out like thereâs some vast concurrence of Great Minds on this.
Tell you what: This weekend, Iâll even see about hauling Brisc and Jinâtaan into a chat, laying out how I think all this plays out, and getting you a record of what the guy who suggested the idea says in response. Iâd offer to get more of them involved, but I think Sortâs irked at me for Open Comms the other week, and you really donât want a record Aryth responding to literally everything by telling people how he planned everything out all along, since the first day he ignited the goddamned sun.
3 Likes
You clearly are not aware of the discussion on the wardec issue.
A structure basis for declaring a wardec, is well established in discourse, and supported.
Giving defenders a way to end wars, by destroying that structure, is not a bad thing.
Especially inlight of the serious problem of players leaving due to them, as indicated by CCP to CSM in the minutes of this thread.
1 Like