The New War System!

Called it, knew it wouldn’t be long after the ‘war dec fix’ that people would complain about the next thing that can kill them.

Must admit, hilarious to see carebears (who I’ve been arguing against for years about wars) now want to use wars when they don’t need it (because gankers don’t care if you war them).

And it shows. Most of the time gankers self-destruct their pod back to their home station anyways. In addition most gankers have negative sec status so they can be freely engaged at all times. Finally CODE. alliance owns several highsec structures; they can be wardecced.

The war dec mechanics is fine in theory, but currently so broken, that it is actually impossible to destroy any structure in high-sec. Any structure owner can exploit bugs in the system to dodge any war dec on them. Unless these bugs are fixed, the whole system is useless.

Sorry, didn’t mean to ruffle any feathers.

Prior to this, they would simply be in an NPC corp.

At least they are self identifying so you can set them to -10.


I think it’s exactly the opposite…

Yes, it’s supposed to be. But it’s not.

It’s called an ‘inversion bug’. By joining and then leaving an alliance, the corp can become the aggressor in the war (instead of the defender). Since the corp is the aggressor, it can end the war before the next timer. And since you need then again 24 hours to make a new war active, you can’t kill the structure. We have seen this exploit now a couple of times. And there is not much you can do against it.

Is this still the case if you dec the corp that owns the station rather than the alliance? Or at that point can they simply transfer ownership to a different corp in the alliance, and the cycle begins again? I would have thought (hoped?) that there is something that prevents an ‘at war’ entity from transferring assets to anyone else?


You can passively train up an alpha account to be an effective ganker in a Catalyst, Thrasher, and/or Tornado. Just get you and a few friends to do this and you have dedicated gankers that have little effect on your main style of gameplay.

Single corps don’t get wardecs unless they aren’t in an Alliance. You can’t just wardec 1 corp that’s in an alliance of 5 other corps - the entire alliance gets the wardec.

You also cannot transfer structures while you’re at war.

1 Like

The corp with the structure wasn’t in an alliance when we declared war. They joined and then left that alliance after that. So there is no counter play.

I don’t see an issue with this, it is the same as it ever was. Gankers used to be in NPC Corps, or CODE, now they are in small no-name Corps. You either could or couldn’t 'dec them, neither made a difference as you can’t catch them in anything other than a pod or Catalyst anyway. Stop trying to make Hi-sec safe, I’m a care-bear and I’m sick of all the CCP mollycoddling of Hi-sec.

1 Like

People are focused on the effects to the player after they gank someone. Thing is, all you need is a basic alpha toon. Just bio the one that has neg sec status and bring up your recently newly trained one. Its not even a long train. So this doesnt help - its just sugar coating.

I made a proposal to CCP that they allow people to spend ISK to have concord at site before the ganking occurs. if you sense its coming or getting bumped etc…spend some isk, get them in to help before the ganking and not an after effect.

CCP makes out with a new ISK sink and players have at least some sort of option.

I like your idea, except we are talking about alpha clones that require like two weeks of training and the impact is non existent.

Biomassing a negative sec status character and remaking one is against the TOS. Someone would have to report you, but it’s not “legal. Just clearing that up.

1 Like

It would be additional steps and management on a playstyle that’s I can’t imagine how they’re maintaining already due to the low levels of interaction.

And yeah, the fact that you can’t biomass the negative toons is the defeator. I didn’t think it would let you, but if it does allow it… you would get petitioned and banned if it were done systemically…

Robocop, thanks for clarifying that.

Out of interest why is it against TOS? Surely its just training multiple characters then deleting them when done with them?

There was a GM ruling, years ago, that systematically doing this to evade the consequences of low security status was an exploit. It was a different era, before first Tags-For-Sec and then Alpha accounts, where perhaps this was a viable strategy and some people did it.

Today, most characters worth ‘redeeming’ can be made positive security status with a few hundred million in tags while free and unlimited accounts via Alpha clones makes the idea that you’d have to delete one a little silly. You could just keep making accounts, gank with them, and then let them go dormant. This isn’t a real thing anymore, if it ever was.

Still, don’t do it.

1 Like

I assume it’s because training basic gank characters is very easy and simple… like a few hours for a noob catalyst.

CCP doesn’t want players bypassing their intended consequences for ganking by cheesing it with biomassing and character creation. I know people that have done it though and they’ve never got caught… it would take player reports.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.