War Dec System?

Read at your own risk, yes this is other war dec system, over hauled by other player in eve. Yes, I’m sure nothing in this topic will ever happen but feedback would be nice and welcoming. I ask all replies be friendly and to the point.

Hello, Eve Community!

It’s time we think long and hard about bounties and the targets. Changing how or who we war dec should be look at also. The most important change which should happen is players in newbie corps should not be allow to change the safety settings which will remain in the green settings. So let’s jump right in to this complex topic which one answer cannot please everyone.

Greater Timers and Lesser Timers… base on your security levels…

War-Decking… Single Players to Corporations… and Structures…

Newbies get the Green Settings or Make your cheap corp to take part…

New Risks for Ganging and punishment for taking part…

I think you mean “dec” which is short for DEClaration, not “Deck”…


Ok, you seem to have vaguely identified some areas you think are problems I don’t see any ideas here except locking NPC Corp players to a green safety setting.

Why? If they are yellow and they steal something (or do something else shady like run a high tier Abyssal site) they go suspect and you can shoot them. If they set to red and commit a crime and attack someone, not only do they lose their ship to CONCORD, they get a killright (so you can shoot them) and if they do that a few times, lose sec status and become an Outlaw (so you can shoot them).

Plus, given you can leave a war at any time by dropping corp, I don’t see what your idea will accomplish.

Why? All safeties start green by default, which means a player has to change them, and confirm the change, to make them something else. This means a player has to want to do that. Why would you take things away from players that they want to do?

Ganking is already a risk. If you fail the gank, you lose your ship and sec status and gain nothing for it. Punishment for ‘taking part’? Far to vague, just like everything else you wrote.

I’d guess that the intent behind not allowing players in NPC corps to take their safeties off of green is to prevent gankers from being safe from retaliation or proactive action by hiding in the NPC corps.

It’s not terrible, as to take advantage of that you would have to be in a corp and vulnerable to wardec yourself.

1 Like

Personally would consider them to be punted into the pirate faction corp…

1 Like

That would require more development of the game world, something that’s been ignored for at least a decade.

Um the only new idea I see here is the locked safety setting, which seems counterintuitive imo.

It’s poor reasoning. Gankers are punished with losing sec status for their activities. Career gankers in NPC corps don’t need a wardec to kill, they’re already red. And the moment they open fire on you, they’re fair game.

think i misread that

As -10 I’m always fair game. Ya sure you expressed that properly?

Yes, I did. Because everyone starts at 0, so a new toon opening fire on you is only fair game when he opens fire on you.

Ya it’s just that context was on career gankers, so it got me confused. All good.

Could have been worded better.

The days of being force into NPC is not need any more. Just make a default chat room everyone can join, and close if they wont want to take part of it. Allow users to join these other faction corps. Not sure really but it would be a start to this idea.

The issue with this and so many threads like it is the OP did not CLEARLY define the problem they are trying to solve in the first place.

“I got war deced” is not a problem :wink:

Some of the issue is you just blanket NO without thought for the content you are shouting down.

I don’t see anything in his post complaining about being wardecced. All I see is him trying to bring wardecs to those who hide in NPC corps to gank, a change which would require those wishing to use that change to proactively defend themselves to be In a corp and vulnerable to wardecs themselves.

So… you know… maybe argue against his post, and not what you want his post to be?

Not sure exactly how a negative security status is punishment - especially when you can buy it back. It’s also more than a bit ironic that immediately after destroying you CONCORD lets you dock-up.

The reality is that there is zero reward and incentive for being good and exactly the opposite for being evil.

1 Like

Wanting people to define the problem they are trying to solve is hardly a blanket no.

His intent seemed pretty clear to me. Then again, I read and understood what he posted and didn’t kneejerk a No.