None. But then again I live in NS and don’t really do war decs as an aggressor.
This is where you missed the point. Set the module to war target. One module. One war target. Must be in high sec space.
No, I got the point. Sure, you have to have a citadel…then you fit a module. My point is that this is likely to further reinforce being in larger war deccing alliances to share those costs and thus make some of the current complaints even worse.
You know the saying, “When you are in a hole and want to get out, stop digging.”
Nope… one module per war dec. Not alliance war dec because an alliance does not control the citadel. If an entire alliance wishes to declare war every corp in that group needs to add the module to a citadel in high sec and set them to the same target. Null sec does not have this requirement as by definition there is no rules in null sec. Knock the citadel for one of them out either they need a replacement before the war ends or they lose their ability to participe until the end of the war without concordokens on their ships.
So you want to severely limit or even effectively eliminate war decs. Yeah, bad move too. We don’t need no far, far fewer war decs we need a better system. This sucks balls.
How did I limit your corp from declaring war? You set the module, your target for your corp is declared, you can set as many wars as you want so long as you spend more modules setting targets and to keep them going you merely need to keep the citadel running. Nothing eliminates the ability to declare war. Nothing makes your allies participate in a war. Your alliance “should” support your war but I won’t hold them accountable to that. That’s not my job.
BTW, I reference you to this post of mine as to why your idea sucks balls. Whatever you think this will do, it probably won’t.
Right now those wanting to do HS PvP either gank freighters, miners via subsidies, or the do war decs which are mostly mass war decs. The latter won’t be feasible if you have to put up hundreds of citadels. So we’ll see mass war deccing go the same way as focused war decs and many of the players doing that might exit the game too.
Right…setting up citadels is not a exactly cheap, unless you are proposing a cheaper new structure for this. And again, setting up dozens or even hundreds is going to be something that people might see if there can be some economies of scale by grouping up.
You are pretty much falling into the pit fall that Scipio made: bigger groups might find this easier to do–i.e. we reinforce the problem of large groups. And that war deccing alliance, fine they’d switch over to having just one corporation.
Not eliminating is not the same a limiting it. If I shackle you have I limited your ability to move? Yes. Have I eliminated your ability to move? No.
To be clear, you have pretty much made a proposal that is exactly as Scipio describes it. These groups already have assets “at risk” in space in that during a war dec on your group you can go shoot them. This adds nothing except another constraint on to the war dec machanic. We have seen the results of restricting war dec mechanics and, IMO, it is a general loss of content and with it likely players as well. You want to shift, as per Malcanis’ post quite a while ago notes, the burden of adaptation over to the war deccers.
1 Like
That’s perfectly fair. Now go ahead and point out where I misquoted you.
Right, this may NOT be true. However, just because it MIGHT not be true, that does not allow us to assume it is false.
Yeah, so, basically, here is what you did wrong:
Argument from ignorance
Argument From Fallacy
Also, please note the use of the indefinites “Maybe” and “might” in the section you quoted. Moving on . . .
So, if I’m in a corp and our action is to build and sell a Titan, and we do . . . who failed?
Okay, but then my status as a member of the State War Academy also means zip. Furthermore, CONCORD protects members of other corps so long as those members have a security status above -5, with the exception of aggression from entities those corps are at war with or the usual exceptions for Limited Engagements, Suspect Status, and Criminal Status. NPC corporation member ship exempts me from war declarations, but many players are not in NPC corporations, yet CONCORD still protects them from aggression in high security space. From this, we should conclude that it is not NPC corporation membership that yields CONCORD protection, but something else. Is it strictly having security status above -5? No. There are other exceptions, but . . . do you really want to get into the weeds of what precise conditions must be met for CONCORD to protect or not protect? It is clearly NOT NPC corporation membership. It is enough to know THAT.
Anybody can fly around without having to worry about a war dec on their shoulders. Drop corp → Have fun.
Are you starting to see why I say that maybe corporations are the problem?
In effect you confirm that mass war decs would be ended against random corporations. What you also narrow the field down to is that this does nothing to gankers. It should do nothing to the gankers. What it does do is make you wage war. Which… isn’t the point? Someone please give me some popcorn as I try to find why war isn’t war.
There are farktons of citadels everywhere. Cheap is relative. Bubblegum is cheap to me but in some countries it’s a luxury product that is expensive.
Now that all these citadels have the same timers and you can’t undeclare war from that module until the target is destroyed or you rip it out and surrender the war (with a fee of course because you just inconvenienced Concord) Good luck defending dozens or hundreds of stations when anyone NOT in that corp is effectively going to be destroyed for attacking someone they are not at war with.
You are forgetting that if you are war deced you can’t transfer your citadels. Thus you can eliminate the competition by destroying their citadels. When they have no more citadels you hunt their players, when they have no more players you win because you destroyed their corporation (or alliance) thru war.
In direct contrast the defenders have the effects of null sec space in high sec upon their objects. They can’t transfer citadels or POCO’s to anyone else. To hire defenders they would need someone to declare war on their attackers or join the defenders corp. This is the same situation for both sides. If you are not involved in war you get concordokened for jumping in. You don’t need the module to be declared war on. Only to attack in high sec without getting concordokened.
I’ll give you an example.
Lets say A declares war on B. A has a citadel in the same system as B. B can now be attacked anywhere in high sec by A after the start up timer expires. Everything in space that B owns is now under war and can’t be transfered at the start of A’s war dec timer. A no longer has to pay any isk to continue the war. B can hire C to declare war on A but C must have a war module to do such and in order to do that would also require a citadel in high sec space. If C jumped in to defend A by attacking B without this they would lose their ship due to Concord detecting an illegal action. This action can be any aggressive action on A’s ships that would result in a criminal flag normally. Reps would just make them legal targets to A for the rest of the war as currently exists. This would NOT be reverse added. A can then freely shoot at the reps forever and a day without penalty. Reps do ONE thing that isn’t legal for them to do in high sec anywhere they get Concordokened. Bumping would not be considered such as bad pilots are just bad pilots considering bumping is not a concord offense in the first place.
B has three options.
1: Do nothing. They can hope and pray that they will but today they are still just war deced.
2: Attempt to form a defense/offense. War lets them shoot back.
3: Surrender the war by conceding everything that A wants.
A has three options also.
1: Do nothing and wait for surrender.
2: Attack.
3: Destroy the module and pay the fine concord assigns. (no, I won’t know what this would be, that would take more fine tuning than I am able to do in a short post)
C only has two options.
1: Declare war on A.
2: Don’t declare war on A.
Either they declare war or don’t. I can’t choose their attack or defense.
Now choose your targets. If it’s a scrap corp with nothing in space then you’re free to do such. I won’t stop you and never will decide your targets for you. You just gained the benefit of not being under alt attackers to your war without the same expense being put on the defenders allies. Be this one corp, 20 corps, or 200 corps. I am putting extreme penalties on defenders for your attacker. I am also buffing your attacker by giving them free reign of destruction and putting people who choose to assist in a war they’re not involved in at risk.
But lets add on to this:
If someone quits a corp during war then they can’t rejoin that corp until the war ends. They’re also still considered a defender until the war ends or two weeks passes. Side effect of you joining the corp in the first place. Non-Ranked members of a corp can quit within that first 24 hours without penalty by instantly sacrificing their affiliation. This extends until your first login if by chance it happened when you couldn’t be at computer. I do have to give some people the benefit of a doubt and upon their login they will be asked if they wish to quit their corp or be in the war. Their answer would be applied on login. CEOs and others with privileges granted to them are stuck. Anyone who quit a corp to avoid the war can not rejoin the corp until the war ends.
This puts responsibility back in corps. Both for attackers and defenders in war. If we can’t do that then we don’t have a thread anymore.
So take corps A, B, C.
A is at war with B, all C has to do to end the war is declare war and blow up the right Citadel.
See the problem here?
Large corps get to dictate your abilty to declare war on ANYONE.
It’s a badly flawed idea.
Also no, CCP are not going to revert crimewatch back to the mess it used to be.
I for one find it amusing when War decking corps lose a 2billion isk Mach to a T1 cruise blop.
1 Like
Nope. Large corps still have to declare war to attack someone in high sec. This isn’t any different than it currently is beyond adding a module for them to declare war. If large corps are an issue today then they don’t change at all with this. If they aren’t then it still doesn’t change.
Right now, a large corp can not stop me waging war with whoever I want. WIth your suggestion the large corp can utterly shut down my ability to declare war on anyone by destroying my structures.
So yes it absolutely changes.
1 Like
There’s nothing preventing them from hunting you down and blowing up everything you own right now. There’s nothing preventing them from camping your station 24/7. Either this is a 100% confirmed problem that you suffer currently or it doesn’t.
Sure, but them blowing my citadel up now doesn’t stop me being able to wage war.
Station camps can’t catch instiwarp bookmarks, or jump clones so they can’t keep me station camped permanently either. Since bubbles aren’t a thing in highsec.
So no, it’s not a problem right now. And your suggestion does change it.
1 Like
If y’all want to give solutions to whatever problem wars might cause, or what they lack atm,
meil me ingame, I’ll send you a link to a discord discussing wars.
I’m not going to post it here… Ever
So don’t ask 
1 Like
Then you aren’t prevented from waging war. You’re just limited to the targets you have the ability to declare war on. If you can’t afford to pay the price Concord sets for the module of being 50m and keeping it operational that’s not Concord’s fault.
No, If Corp C decides they are going to declare war on me and blow up my citadels to stop me from being able to declare or continue a war, they can do so under your suggestion. It’s not ‘I am limited in my targets’. It’s ‘Corp C can stop me from declaring war on ANYONE’. And that simply is not ok.
1 Like
Then corp C can always do this currently. Which means that current war mechanics are not OK either.