The CSM 13 Winter Summit Minutes are out

Despite how I feel about limiting wars, it won’t work. The current mechanics allow a work around where even if you limited a corp / alliance to 1 war at a time there’s still a way around it.

The groups that blanket dec are mostly doing so to intersect trade hub traffic. Haulers and Freighters are big targets. What does it matter if there are blanket decs if the only time you’re likely to see the aggressor is when you visit a trade hub? When you do go to a trade hub while at war you ought to use a hard to catch ship, scout yourself, or use a 3rd party hauling service.

Of course I do, they are the defender of the aggression, so therefore the timer of the war dec structure even if owned by the aggressor should always be set to the TZ of the defender in the war dec. Otherwise we will have TZ tanking by the war deckers. This is easy stuff mate in game design.

@Brisc_Rubal and @Steve_Ronuken This is important because the blanket war deckers will just TZ tank it, please think about it. Best to go with no vulnerability windows or reinforcement cycles.

I have seen time after time so called hisec mercs refusing to do structure bashes because they are boring and that is because they are lazy, that they don’t want to do it does not mean that others will not. For example I got a large number of Noobs to shoot a Medium POS in Niarja of the corp that had war decked them when I brought my lads in as allies. It is easy to do.

So he is an exception, so I tip my hat to him and give him the respect for that then…

I strongly disagree with this. Unfortunately time zone tanking is just a part of Upwell structures. The idea is to encourage fighting and battles, right? If you want to do that then the person that owns the structure ought to be able to place the timers when they have sufficient activity to mount their protection. It should be up to the defenders to alarm clock if need be… that or reach out to partner with someone that is able to assist you in that TZ.

They are the defender in terms of the aggression, the TZ should be set to the benefit of the defender. Otherwise the blanket war deckers will set them all outside the TZ of the defenders and just laugh at the change as they are only interested in passing targets not the entities main play time.

If CCP does not do as I suggest here, it will not change a thing.

My experience says otherwise. You should know that there are people willing to group up to take on war dec groups. We have an “anti-pirat coalition” formed against us right now. Given enough critical mass even large war dec groups can be defeated. Makes for some pretty sweet fights too!

So no I don’t agree with you. Sure the aggressor started the war but if they own structures then they should reserve the right on when it’s vulnerable. Honestly I would prefer if we got rid of the initial vulnerability timer and make all structures bash-able and the timer starts on armor… just like in Wormholes.

1 Like

Have no timer at all. Like: the defender is free to engage at every time. If the Wardec is mutual, they won’t kill it. If the dec is not mutual, then ending the war quickly is, in my opinion, what’s needed. Go out, Yolo that structure and go back to whatever you did before the dec.


In nullsec the defender of the aggression has the timers, the hisec entity being aggressed should have the ability to define when the timers of such structures are vulnerable if there is a vulnerability window or secondary timers. Otherwise KISS, no vulnerability windows, make it single shot and destroyed as in no reinforcement cycles.

That Anti-PIRAT group is making it difficult for PIRAT to easily camp Jita and Amarr, just as I did to Deadly Fingertips in the AU TZ a while back when they were lacking numbers.

If CCP makes an error here in not assessing who the real defender is in this then it will not change a thing. I can imagine the war deckers sitting there laughing among themselves going the timers will be set outside their main TZ and they have no chance. Well no, the aggressed party are the defenders and if there are vulnerability windows they need to be set to their TZ.

Personally I will go with this:

1 Like

What are you proposing? Go to their houses and force them to log in and undock?

A ‘war declaration’ structure by itself, while often mentioned and one of the oldest alternative proposals, isn’t going to be an “Asterix & Obelisk” style magic potion that suddenly makes one group able to defeat a professional fighting force.

The attacker won’t war declare against a force with greater power, and if they do, the defender doesn’t need a damn structure to win.

For years members of the CSM have highlighted this as an issue, for years CCP has failed to listen to the call for change, for years this problem has been allowed to fester and now the data is so dire it has some movement, its time to do more than just flop out a structure and say “there you go, all fixed, k thanks, bye! lol”

1 Like

Knowing what the ramifications are of the mechanic, what corporation is going to be dumb enough to war declare so many people that they might be threatened? What stops a mostly EU-TZ corporation declaring on a NA-TZ corporation and the EU-TZ time zone tanking the structure for NA monday mornings at 9 am?

No no no no! No attacker will be that dumb, and even if you blow up the structure what’s to stop them from declaring war again against the corporations who weren’t able to organise, nor cared to?

Because a bunch of miners have no choice now but to put up a citadel if they want to compress their ore for free ship it off to Jita …

1 Like

Yes, it enables an option, but the option is as about as appealing as a dingo farm next to a daycare centre. Would a war structure provide an option that supplies a better return and less risk than “not logging in” or “drop to NPC corporation” ?

To enable something like this all other structures in high sec would have to operate the same, why should we waste waiting weeks for final timer on a structure for someone to blow up our war structure while we’re in bed a few hours before.

Granted, CCP does not always communicate well and you have to be a veteran of the trench before you know what is going on. This in itself points to why there should be tiers of corporations so that the level of difficulty scales with the ambitions of the corporation.

Missions are tiered, we don’t see people complain about changing those mechanics to force everyone to only run level 4’s and argue if they can’t do them to just sit there in a rookie ship while they rely on someone else to do all the damn work.


1 2

Right now they are not threatened at all by being at war with more than 100 other alliances. That is just ridiculous!


You will be hard pressed to get people that have no interest in pvp, suddenly interested in pvp. Doesn’t matter what the system is like.


Wasn’t one of the design goals of FozzieSov to divide forces up to reduce the performance impacts of blobbing?

We have 25 active wars currently, and all are contracts or bound to Citas
These two allys are not the only war allys in HS…

The single structure would be the source of all the wardecs from that Corp.

Destroying it ends all wardecs issued by that corp, in favor of all defenders.

If you wardec 100 corps, you may find 100 corps kicking over your wardec structure, or they can pool resources and hire mercs to do it.

The suggested mechanic is being ignored as by itself this solution is highly unlikely to create an environment that doesn’t result in the same negative data trends.