Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The other aspect of this proposal is that like many change wardec proposals it only considers the "Marmite are bad, grrrrr" aspect of wars.

What about genuine attempts by one small Corp to disrupt another Corp.

A small industrial Corp that decides it'll give a war a go to gain a competitive advantage, pays the fees and CONCORD drops the structures.

Now the defenders don't have to negotiate or interact with this Corp. Thry just have to wait until the right Timezone, kill the structure and the attackers lose.

Legitimate war, took a risk and a forced into loss for no benefit.

Screw legitimate wars too.

You've said yourself that they pay for a wardec in order to remove CONCORD and allowing them destroy the ships of their intended target.
The only thing the structure does is present a juicy target for the defender which attacking could have a positive outcome, and for the aggressor, it brings their targets out into the open so they can shoot them..

If the defender is unwilling to fight over the structure, then the aggressor goes about the wardec the same way they do now, only the corp folding and/or players dropping corp has a notable penalty.

As far as your question on the costs.
Well, my intent behind costs it to keep balanced numbers and allow skill to determine the victor, so it may be who of us to block recruitment all together, thus even further incentivizing fighting on the defender's part in order to open recruitment back up.

It also has the benefit of both defender's and aggressors monitoring/cleaning their members of innactives in order to reduce dec costs and/or reduce numbers to avoid having to face more aggressors with less active members.
It also incentivizes corps putting their corp office where they actually are, so when a war goes active, the structure isn't placed way outside of their reach. People will often put their office in say Jita, but live out of Sinq region, in hopes to confuse and aggressor and/or defender.

As far as a lowsec entity with bad standings, You're in lowsec... if they want to kill you, they have to come to you, which likely isn't going to happen with most deccers as it increases risks.
... And if you want to consider this a logistics issue, most low, null, and even WH entities use alts to transport goods, so it doesn't effect them.
If they're actually using assets within the entity, they're losing out anyway...

[And yet, they aren't proposed here. Go figure.

Then who gets to pick the vulnerability window?

The attackers of course, they're effectively setting up the confrontation and the mechanic should be designed to promote conflict. If the defender has the choice they'll obviously try to set it in a way that avoids that conflict.

We'll have to disagree on this one. I don't think fair is the word that should be enforced when decs are predominantly non-consensual. Nor do I feel that having a single person online should obligate them to face the brunt of a defender attack. It restricts the use of single operators exploiting defenders possible feelings of safety in off peak times amongst other things.

The idea is to promote confrontation, not allow one side to weasel around it. That confrontation happens best when the aggressor is capable of fielding a competent defense of the war asset.

We also don't need fewer wars, so we should probably avoid cutting out aggressive groups just because they don't have a roster that supports round the clock operation.

Basically the dec should favor the aggressor while offering the defenders a combative out to best promote what war is ostensibly about, fighting other players in higsec.

It's fully intuitive when you view the war asset as a thing that is really designed to give opportunity for other things to explode.

If given the option to penalize the defender and risk wars going for a full week or having them over in a day due to that one guy who logs on off peak but can't defend against the onslaught of opposition I'd think those wars where the defender might have to offshift are the far lesser evil than telling people not to play outside of certain times because they could screw up a dec.

In the case where confrontations require one side to off-shift it should favor the side that would preserve the war.

Well, since it's unlikely for the aggressor to get trapped in an off-peak war (they were never trapped to begin with and further the defender taking advantage of an attackers off peak would END the war) and we're not trying to not have wars it's the only way that makes sense.

And again, why should the aggressors target selection be limited in such a way. The idea of a war goal should be to get in the way of traditional war activities including target selection as little as possible while providing the defenders a target. If the defenders can't/won't field a counter attack in the appropriate timeframe then there is the traditional method of waiting for the war to end.

This should be a option, not an assured mandate for how wars are ended. Thus it's not needed for there to be equal chance of success. Wardec are antagonistic after all. The ability to openly antagonize is pretty important.

No, what we have now is no amount of doing anything ending a war. What we shouldn't want is a war that doesn't happen because the aggressors refuse to log in when they can't field the numbers to keep the war from ending and thus missing all the defenders when they finally have the strength in bodies to make it worthwhile.

It creates a situation where the aggressors potentially can't aggress. That's a clear problem.