WarDec, War Room: Suggestions for the Wardec Project


I have been following the Wardec Project for a moment and I have been very interested in their idea of the War Room they have pushed for a moment. I think it solves some of the core problem of Wardecs in that they are something intangible, lacking interaction, and scaling too well (blanket decs).

After much thinking I think I came up with a set of suggestions that could help make the War Room fulfill that potential, but more importantly that would cover some of the weaknesses of the idea in that it asks for too much commitment in anchor times/ask for tedious structure removal/etc…

So there are the points I propose for consideration for the Wardec Project, I would like you to poke at themselves to reveal any faults they would have before I properly introduce them to the project:

  • Small, easily and rapidly deployable Structures that allow corporations to house War Rooms for each War declaration. The Structure are easily reinforceable (thus avoiding the tedium of destroying current citadels) and through reinforce they ensure a point in time where the conflicts ask for a direct conflict/commitment.
  • Small, easily and rapidly deployable Surveillance Structures anchorable only to Jump Gates with a limit of one per Jump Gate. Their roles would be to fill on the capabilities of the Watchlist that have been removed. They would be able to tell when either a corp or a pilot has jumped through the gate or when said pilot onlined in the system (different modules, one for each target). Can be Hacked by the enemy for various effects.
  • War Rooms allowing war against one entity only in the system they have been deployed in. This to give a proper geography to Wars. A corporation would thus put a proper claim on the system instead of just an intangible license to kill.
  • Beacons/Surveillance nodes deployed by said structures to monitor the system. Hackable/Lootable by enemy players in the war, providing solo/accessible content for people in Wars.

Another more general point: Further involvement of Empire Corps in those wars.

The distinctive aspect of High-sec is the presence and prevalence of Empire corps. Using them can create the distinctive system high-sec needs to distinguish itself from Low, Null, and Wormhole space.
For that I propose player corporations aligning themselves/working for an Empire Corp for a War. Through this two things can happen:

  • Involvement of NPCs that can be content for the other side of the war, opening the possibility of sites/fleets that can be contested, ex: a CPF supply fleet to the War Room structure that can be attacked by the enemy.
  • Justification for a reward system for participating in a war that would result in LP being distributed for ship destroyed and for objectives attained.

There, have at them, don’t be too harsh, those are general points that definitely need refinement. However, don’t be too nice either, probe them enough to see if there is anything inherently game-breaking or just plain unfun about them.



No ty

I think pretty much everyone that deals with wars know that tying them to structures won’t resolve the current and past issues.

Even if you put incentives for the defender to fight back, the fact is that they simply won’t bother.

Also this whole “let’s tie wars to structures” will make those that already control large areas of space even more powerful since smaller entities won’t have any way of dealing with them…

E1: the more I read after that, the more nope came out of my mouth, esp that “let’s restrict wars to one system” part…

1 Like

While I am in general resistant to the idea of letting NPCs fight for players, I will comment on this.

If you are going to align yourself with one of the Empires, then you really have to align yourself. None of this free protection with no trade-offs or downsides Eve player love to ask for. If you align yourself with an Empire, then the enemies of that Empire can come gunning for you, and won’t take too kindly to you entering their space.

But really, we already have a Faction Warfare system and NPC already do spawn in highsec to help you defend against the other side. Maybe all that is needed is more deeply integrate Faction Warfare corps into their respective Empire making it so that anyone who declares war against them is treated as a member of the opposite Empire. That gives them some protection from wars, but at the same time opens them up to attack all the time from the opposite militia.

Nope. Terrible ideas in this thread. I would write more but it seems like the people above already stated why this is a bad idea

Even if you put incentives for the attacker to actually attack the fact is that they simply won’t bother unless it’s easy and funny.

In effect there is no war in this game. Merely anti-concord payment.

The attackers have the incentives already

Fun and isk

The defender can’t be forced to fight, and more often than not, the defender will simply stop playing for as long as the war runs (it’s been like that forever)

A lot of familiar faces… I think I talked to both Dom and Hudson on the WarDec discord.

I don’t really see how they stated that it was a bad idea, from Dom he says that it doesn’t matter the incentives you put in, defenders won’t bother, to which I could only respond ‘what about giving those incentives first and measure the response instead of assuming they won’t bother’. There is plenty evidences that if the incentive is good enough people will tend to bother doing what is asked of them.

Plus I have some sincere doubts on that everyone, so far I have only seen you, Hudson, and Marcus saying so, and that out design problem out of structures, not out of the War Room design. On the opposite the idea seems popular, to the point of even Fozzie evocating in a positive manner.


Give me at least a reason here, I explained why I think it would be a good thing as it would give a geography to wars, what’s so egregious about it that all you could think was ‘nope’?

I think it’s about it being funny. People tend to go through many ordeals if they find it fun, even the likes of LoL spouted as the kings of on-demand easy fun are actually ordeals people are ok with because they get to gank noobs in lane.

Yep, Wars are more licenses to kill than the war of Conquest we have in mind. As long as this is not changed, either through the addition of objectives or spatiality, wars will just be a broken toy for high-end mercs at the detriment of everyone else.

Do you see wars in null restricted to one single system?

One day they might be here, there the next, etc…

There would be no point whatsoever in doing wars…

These suggestions are terrible
Pls no

War… War never changes.

Null and High-Sec are different, there is a reason wars are not restricted by anything in Null, there is a reason they should be restricted, both in space and scope, in High-sec.

What is that reason?
Does it have anything to do with your corp dying to one guy over and over during a war?

1 Like

Lol probably
OP… sorry but git gud :confused:

They did before I joined. And I will try to shape them up into fighting form, trust me on that.

Just for your knowledge, I’ve lived several years in FW low-sec.

I’m not the best pilot but I know how to handle wardecs and PvP, I’ve lived under a real one for years.

Anyway, that you have to resort to a sorta-ad-hominem is telling. No it does not have to do with one guy, it has to do with a flawed system that only profit a handful of people, they live off a festering corpse and they would rather the game dies off of that festering spreading than have it changed.

Whether low, high, null, I make a point of looking at systems objectively, not out of my personal interest but out a genuine love for the game, a game that I want to see succeed, and the very fear of it actually dying if things don’t move ahead and they just keep festering.

You want to limit/remove the little bit of content that left in highsec, go for it.

You don’t see things from the perspective of the people who’ve been doing this type of activity for many years.

Right now, the most content most groups get is structure bashes. No defenders, no one trying to bait, no nada

I want a reform, but not the way you want to push it.

Pardon but…

You did just confirm that there isn’t any point slightly earlier for defenders. So knowing there is zero point for a defender to fight you expect them to continue to have zero reason to fight forever?

That’s status quo for the sake of status quo.


1: Conflict is illegal
2: War-dec
3: Conflict is now legal
4: End of story

If you fight a high-sec war, you are fighting in someone else’s space, the NPC empire’s space. Therefore, this whole high-sec war structure crap simply doesn’t fly.

1 Like

You want to fix the problem with players not defending their assets by adding new assets? It seems like this would still skew in favor of the richer aggressors.

I’m not sure if anything you proposed will do anything aside from continue to let them be lazy (and thus, undeserving) to protect their assets. Thing is, if most defenders got off their asses & actually put up a fight, it would already reduce the number of ‘blanket wars’.

They don’t fight because they don’t want to fight

They’ve had the “highsec is a safe zone” idea in their heads for too long when it’s simply not true.

1 Like

Yes. Argue more for status quo. Now they don’t fight because they don’t want to fight. Not because there is no reason to fight as there is nothing that will end the war in their favor save the attacker saying “uncle” anymore. Continue to prove that you think people think high sec is safe. Now how do you make high sec less safe for war? Anything? Nothing? Don’t wana talk?