It is not just PIRAT who are blowing Upwell structures up in hisec, but a large number of different entities. I am watching how this develops going forward with acute interest.
So if we get to a point where only people who can defend them are left in the main important regions, how will that content develop?
And the answer to that will define whether this change is a success or not.
Oh, I guess for 15+ years we never had anything, huh? 
Sorry, but slow-boating a big space truck from Jita to Hek is never going to be as fun as blowing it up is.
You do realize we’re talking about overall wardec mechanics here right? Aggressor/defender war conditions, payouts, victory/loss conditions?
Not about ganking single, mostly defenseless targets because you’re CODE. and that’s the only fight you can expect to win.
Think of the children(Pirat) CCP! They bark the loudest!
Doesn’t matter, principle holds.
If you choose moving large quantities of crap from one place to another, or sitting in ice belts melting snowballs or whatever carebear activity as your primary in-game profession, you can expect less thrills than the dude who chooses to go into the profession of hunting and killing you. Furthermore, this shouldn’t be hugely surprising to anyone.
You were obligated to throw in this lil morsel of butthurt, weren’t you? 
I’m a complete asshat with my game toon, and I ignore miners, exploration toons, and sometimes even turn off my warp jammer. Just because. I admit, not often. But sometimes, at random.
I suppose given the cautious nature of your post that any reply on my part is useless. I will respond anyway 
I will cut straight to the meat and purpose of your post: I am lobbying for changes that I think best benefit a healthy Highsec while still allowing us “pirates”, “criminals”, and “bottom-feeders” to operate within the game. I believe that New Eden is most exciting when there’s conflict because it makes our victories that much sweeter when we overcome them. I understand that Highsec is home to our new players where they load in the first time and I as well as most people would agree that their first impressions of the game shouldn’t be some seemingly impossible task.
I will address some main points and further explain my thought process to be as clear as possible:
War Eligibility
I think it’s good that players can opt out of war if they wish. The question is should they face a penalty, taxed higher, locked out of content, or any number of scenarios in order to provide a carrot on a stick? I mean after all I believe that conflict is good, but I’m sure lots of people disagree with me. Some want to log on for an hour, do some casual activity, then log off. I’m fine with that but expectations should be in-line with the mantra of risk-reward balancing.
Upwell Structures are awesome, but currently they are more like a tree house in your backyard that your rich parents bought and there’s no expectation for you to care about taking care of it. Owning, maintaining, and defending a structure should be a milestone but instead they are treated like something that players expect to have yet want to have nothing to do with the responsibilities. CCP decided to allow players to opt out of Wars if they don’t put a structure down, but the way ACL’s currently work makes that change utterly pointless because they can have their cake and eat it too.
Shouldn’t all of our actions and inaction have effects on how we play the game? I get it, no one likes playing a game where they are a victim but we’re playing a game with pvp and player interaction at its core. If you find yourself primarily a pve player that has something I can take from you or destroy, the game generally allows for that. So we have this ecosystem throughout the whole game… a food chain. I believe in wildlife conservation in real life, and I believe in the same concept within Eve Online. The weakest players shouldn’t be driven from the game, but again… realistic expectations. I have no issues protecting certain players, but they shouldn’t get to have the same experience as someone that does take on that risk.
——
Overarching Theme
Eve is most healthy when we have a purpose beyond just logging on doing whatever activity we prefer. This is an MMO and I think players and even CCP forgets this, and that’s evident by the posts here and on r/eve as well as CCPs development in recent years.
I believe that this applies to war, battles, and conflicts in Nullsec just as it does in Highsec. I feel highsec is in a strange place where it’s struggling with an identity crisis. I wish CCP would come out and explain what their vision is for the whole game really… that way we can all best navigate the waters and find ways to interact in this sandbox without being left with confusion, disappointment, or anger when CCP does something unexpected.
I believe that Highsec is a place where all sorts of wonderful experiences can happen, but this attitude of isolationism and wanting to exist in a bubble prevents that. I guess it’s the mindset of modern games and modern gamers, but yeah. I will admit that I’ve never found myself to be in a position where I’m a helpless victim, because even if I was interested in mining, building, and hauling… I would personally adapt to the nature of Eve. I’ve met industrialists that do well to network and socialize with others that will bite back when they are attacked, and it’s super interesting. I will admit that it’s different if the full force of Pirat wants to remove your structures, but yeah that’s the way it should be… food chain and all that.
——
Final Point
Look at the forums here, look at r/eve, and look at our communities most influential players… Nullbloc leaders, FC’s, “celebrities”, and lastly CSM members. Do we believe that in all these cases that game changes are suggested with the entire games well being in mind? Hell NO! Everyone is lobbying for changes that they present as being fair and balanced, but in their mind they have an idea of how they will benefit or use the suggestion. All it takes is an honest look at Nullsec to see how certain groups have embraced the meta and use it to further stagnate conflict and cement their empires position. What I’m doing isn’t so different, but I like to think I’m actually being honest.
Yes wars have been in a state of displeasure to most people for a long time (that includes those that use wars for content). With the current changes CCP will do, our daily activity won’t change.
We will troll around trade hubs and pipes, and I want to keep it that way. I enjoy providing risk and loss to others and I definitely love the ISK I make from other players poor judgement or lack of agency.
These changes aren’t going to kill us off or destroy what we are or what we do. We will be forced to adapt, but we’re used to that.
Lastly, I oppose the structure part of the changes because it blatantly and almost exclusively favors the large Nullsec blocs. I mean big surprise there considering what the CSM consists of, and it’s not a surprise they would favor gameplay that hinges on N+1 rather than something that is more involved. I prefer my recommendation for wars in which a defender can end the war because it incentivizes players actively engaging in combat with each other rather than the spread out timers. I say this because with these changes we will still be doing what we do around Jita and people will complain that CCP didn’t do enough. At least with my change if someone is determined, they can rack up some kills and end the war which effects the aggressor in more ways than just ending the war.
Now I will be honest, I also prefer my suggestion because I know that most players are too lazy to fight us, but would rather blob a structure in Feroxes or something. I am lobbying to preserve a playstyle that so many people in this game want to see die and they will say or do anything to see it happen.
@Dracvlad is someone that can attest to my desire to see a healthy game for all people. That healthy game consists of conflict. Hope this is a sufficient response!
Crossposting because I think this also fits here
I have thought for a while that it would be interesting to see the narrative of Faction Warfare extend into Highsec. Would be a great way to shake things up!
I can certainly say that this is totally true, Faylee was for me the most open minded of the people I came across in the war dec discord and when I was suggesting the Concord office idea in a declared structure he was the only one who thought of the benefits in terms of actual pixel blowing up content. The others were so negative ranging from chanting magic stations at me to saying that they would be attacked by nullsec alliances, well yeah… Faylee was straight off this is content and it could be fun.
We don’t agree in some areas, but he is not your average take you cake and eat it type of guy like so many of the others. Yes he plays hard and uses the game but he does look into it deeper. All in all a great guy.
In general, and aimed @Faylee_Freir in part.
I am noticing people ignoring certain things about Upwell structures, the first part is that not having module in place and not having it online makes it a lot easier to destroy. And the cost of fuel is about 136.4m ISK a month. That is a responsibility. It appears that many of them being blown up are the debris of the first iteration of these structures where there was no fuel requirements.
It is very important for people to understand the difference between those where people have left the game and have no use for them and those where people are actually wanting to use them. I would suggest that people look more closely at Athanors in 0.5 systems for a clue on this.
In any case I do not think that you should punish people who make themselves ineligible for war, what you need to do is make people have a big enough benefit for putting themselves at risk.
There is no reason at all to limit the amount of structures that there can be in space. Stop putting artificial restrictions on this, they can be blown up and are blown up. The system I am in has no Upwell structures at all, because someone blew them all up.
Asset safety is needed for nullsec, I expect that CCP will at sometime remove it because CCP, you know…, but it will have a very negative impact on nullsec when they do. If you lot just want people dropping caps on roams or only doing PvP in terms of CTA’s then continue to agitate for no asset security, and watch me go into I told you so when content dries up. Seriously…
And removing asset safety just enables you to nab stuff from players who have stopped playing and those that are too dumb to have alts to remove stuff. And I am going to say to you Faylee, for someone telling me you make a lot of ISK in what you do, it worries me that you are demanding another ISK fountain? Are you being honest with me?
You want people to want to use Upwell Structures and not get absolutely murdered for doing so, and that is a major issue and one that you will eventually get to. And what you suggested here makes it worse. This is an example where you get it wrong, because you have not looked at the indy side of things in enough detail and compared hisec to nullsec etc., when you do that I suggest you tell me what you have actually worked out.
I am currently looking at my options in terms of indy and I can tell you it ain’t pretty from my perspective and I am not exactly risk averse.
We still need less unsanctioned pvp in this game to compete in todays market,the player bleed states this clear…
todays market ?
you do mean an area of the gaming market where players do not invest longterm in a game and want pretty much to sail through the game to some sort of end game where they feel they’ve beaten the game and then quit after no more than a year or less.
you think CCP should fundamentally change EVE in the hope they may gain a few thousand subs that will not stick around long enough for any sort of future investment in the game.
this player bleed you speak of is not as bad as you would like to make it out to be, but what about the players we lose because of changes to the game that dumb the game down or worse, stop PVP.
we all want more players to stick around and newer guys to enjoy the game but also understand that EVE isn’t for everyone, making any sort of changes is dangerous so any changes need to be thought out very well and not disrupt the game in a way that would cause current loyal players to leave.
people can be lazy feckers, refuse to watch local, refuse to listen to advice, refuse to not do stupid things which can lead them to being a target, refuse to want to learn a simple thing like avoiding a target in space, refuse to understand it’s up to them to learn a little about the game and stop expecting CCP to step in and change the game when there is already a way to deal with it as a player.
It was brought up last time I spoke of this that limiting structures with a hard number would make sieging an area overly difficult as the area holder can just spam structures to prevent someone from putting down a staging citadel. So the idea of decay was brought up. I think it’d be super interesting to see forgotten and neglected structures decay over time where you see physical damage… just as you could imagine some abandoned space colony looks like in a sci-fi movie. Something like this could be salvaged by other players and even looted for its contents.
I don’t see why asset safety is needed for Nullsec. You’ve mentioned before that it’s needed to keep a cache of roaming ships and dreads for dread bombing, but how were things before citadels? I’m not sure why having this luxury is vital. I am failing to see the absolute need, so maybe you can better describe situations where you need it safe that can’t be replaced with some other method.
Either way, I’m throwing around a concept. It in itself isn’t concrete, as any change to it where nothing is certain would be good to me.
We make a lot of ISK because other players are unwise or ignorant to what they fly, how they fit it, what they carry, and how they do all of it. We also make money because of our capabilities in terms of fulfilling various contracts.
My motivation in these suggestions is simple. Remember those incredible killmails where someone’s abandoned POS was destroyed and it dropped all the goodies? It served as a good motivator to clear out some of the POS trash and such. You also have to think about how long and cumbersome it is to dedicate yourself to seeing a structure go down. Having to first have a proper fleet for the job is step one. Then you have to make it through 3 timers… let’s say 2 of them lined up well for you but the third just won’t work because you have real life obligations.
There’s too much of this crap floating around and changing the structure of when it’s vulnerable is a good first step to seeing them removed, but actual chance at good loot aside from your random and very occasional well-fit one would do wonders.
You want to go back to area control based on an arbitrary limit based on moons. While I can see why you would want to do that, I do not see why people who just want to plonk down a easy to kill structure to make stuff would want to jump through yet another impossible hoop. Seriously?
Now that idea could work in that if the structure was not used then perhaps it could become something that you could hack and take.
Asset safety exactly mimic what was there before in terms of nullsec outposts, on average you have to fire sale for about 15% less of the value of your stuff when you were evicted and your stuff was safe. The issue is that you have some alpha forces running around Eve that will just drop on all the smaller entities staging systems and bang headshot. It would be a catastrophe for the game…
You have to look at cause and effect in terms of this. So does everyone jon the Goons at this point?
Yes, but in nullsec which my focus is on you kept all of your stuff in outposts and only put what was necessary in POS’s you are talking about making everything stay in POS’s effectively, massively increasing risk. Which is why I like the fact that stuff in deliveries and stuff being used in jobs drop as it mimics it at an overall level…
Do you ship scan before you blow it up, that does rather tell you what loot you can expect. I might be coming over as being flippant, but if loot is your objective you might want to change your approach on target selection rather than change game mechanics to such a degree.
Just going to throw my thoughts out there…
From my experience over the years being a merc the most effective approach going after a bigger force is guerrilla warfare. Going head on as a defender and playing the n+1 game is a hard task when the aggressor is more established, prepared and have more friends and resources than you.
That’s why I also think CCP should open up for guerrilla tactic to be viable again.
And for the skeptical thinking Faylee is only promoting what benefits them (PIRAT)
I want to say you are wrong.
I want guerrilla warfare to be a viable tactic again, so I can fight PIRAT without having to be forced to defend my structures against an n+1 fleet to even be war eligible.
I also think and agree with Faylee that the win condition should been based on the war report and not some designated structure you have to push over. It’s a more dynamic solution, and a disadvantage for the larger groups who have more people in space.
To be blunt you are right to defeat PIRAT you have to use guerrilla type tactics rather than meet them head on, but you are making the assumption that just because there is something in space that needs to be destroyed or defended that the only option is to sit there and play the N+1 or numbers game.
When I made the suggestion of linking structures to the war dec I did so on the basis that it was more to force them to have to defend something. In other words consequences, like the fear of nullsec alliances demolishing their structures which was a real issue for you.
I left Spectrum because they wanted to move away from my location, it might have changed however I noticed that they were at war with PIRAT, I noticed them come in and reinforce the Fort in Gonan.
There was the armour timer and Spectrum setup to meet them at the fort, I clucking like a mother hen because on the way in I would have had two blackbirds with neutral suicide characters set up to snaffle two Rattlesnakes as they fleet warped and then log in stealth bombers or Talos’s on that gate and take at least one or maybe two bling boats down. And that was not N+1 but exactly what you said.
Instead Spectrum met them at 0 and got their asses handed to them.
Some artificial win condition like an arena type thing is not Eve to me, and when I hear war dec players come up with such stuff I grimace a lot. Seriously no.
Now your putting words into my mouth again, stop that.
My consern was about the mechanic, to be able to n+1 someone and shut down their capabilities to do business as a merc in hs. If it was nullsec doing it to pirat… or pirat doing it to devils is the same thing. its just a numbers game.
No I am telling you how you came across in the war dec discord to me. You were full of fear that they would close you down and you just said it:
I want to make it quite clear, when I asked you if you war decked the Goons habitually as the Devils you started to go all wobbly on me, and that was because you did not do it as such, you guys were hunters.
As most of the pipe and hub hunters are interested in passing trade to fill their killboards and give low energy war deckers easy kills to maintain that N+1 I can tell you that having a direct impact on that N+1 was what I was after. By having that easy kill bonanza be less easy kill and a little fear. CCP watered it down by allowing any structure to be designated the war HQ…, such a pity that. But it also depends on certain nullsec entities saying ah there is content.
You and your alliance were never really at risk from this, but PIRAT are.
Does that help, or are you going to continue to miss the obvious.
The obvious?
Do you really dont see that PIRAT can use the same mechanic on Devils?
If we had been picking them off one by one in wars with guerrilla warfare, you dont think they would use the option to make us not war eligible? If any enteties smaller than the biggest fish grew to a size to compete or be a nuisance?
I think you really don’t get it, of course they can do the same thing to you as in knock over your structures, do you honestly think that I had not worked that out? Seriously?
Of course they will and you can pick them off while they take it down then drop a new one and do it again. Are you that bothered about losing an Astrahus? Are you that risk averse on a cheap structure?
The objective was to create a consequence. It is key to this and I never understood why you of all people could not get it, and that you were so concerned about it.
War deckers in hisec have a consequence, it is a damn good thing.