Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I had a bit of a think about this.

It seems to me that the main purpose of a wardec could often be to shake down the corp for its assets. That suggests a two-pronged approach.

First prong: the oft-mentioned social corps (no benefit besides dodging some-but-not-all NPC tax, can transition to a real corp but not back, over n members must so transition) give a sort of pseudo-corp with no assets.

The other prong is proposals - like that from Bronson Hughes where some of a corp's NPC standings are vested in the corp itself rather than in the members - which make it easier for a corp to have assets that can't be easily transferred out, combined with easing the task of having a corp reform as a new corp.

What I'm getting at is that if everyone just is willing to drop corp and reform, at the moment the barrier to doing that is partly that it's fiddly. The barrier should be, as far as possible, that you can have assets in the dropped corp to lose; something to be shaken down for.

No, I claim wars with defender incentives will create greater conflict, and ending the war early seems like a good defender incentive. Regarding structures and capture timeframes, yeah, that is an idea that could be exasperated by this, but really is a separate aspect that needs handled on it's own to ensure that capture timeframes are significantly less than a week, which only strengthens the value of the proposed. Obviously if the scenario of a week being the norm comes to pass on highsec eligible structures then even the current wardec mechanic's function in that respect is at risk, but that's another issue that doesn't invalidate this one so much as suggect the balance point for minimum time might need moved out as well as the time for the dec as a whole. That's just a question of balance.

And the aggressors ability to attack is tied to their ability to keep the dec active, which is fine.

As far as being blitzable, again, a balance consideration, one we already have mechanisms for built into a number of existing structures. You balance it to not be blitzable and it isn't. End of story. You are promoting a narrative that isn't being presented and imposing your own weaknesses on the idea as if they are inherent to it. It's been BS the whole time you've been doing it and it still is. Not to say I know the perfect balance point, but someone probably does and it could even be you if you'd get past this carebear obsessive BS you've got going.

No matter how many times you keep saying it it's still a lie. It still doesn't have a grain of truth to it objectively and hasn't since you started this flawed train of argument. And if you think this idea gives something in terms of safety we don't already have in greater proportions, you're not in the same game I am.

And really, if the war is easy to get out of then the attacker made it easy, if they don't then it isn't easy. Funny thing is the same will be true of the defenders structures should they have them. Either the attackers will be up to the task and have the force to counter the defenders or they won't and wouldn't have taken the structure anyways.

Either with or without this though week long mandates to aggress assets are still a separate issue in need of solving independently.

You keep saying this, yet you can toss up a tower for significantly less isk than a good sized wardec.

Hell a small tower is like 60 million before mods and the mods aren't exactly bank breaking.

I mean, if lobbing one of those up gave cheaper wars, what serious wardec corp wouldn't?

Unless you're talking about a new special snowflake set of rules just for these, there would be a good period where the war would be active in the RF periods. Even in todays POS world and tomorrows citadels are even longer - it's about a week to do a full tear down as there are double RF stages then (plus tomorrow you set the window so if it is when you're sleeping, something has gone wrong with the timings).


However, if it's a new special snowflake one, disregard. Personally I think the existing mechanics with a new (cheap) anchorable would be fine if that route is taken.

Actually my above post was innacurate in saying that I can't think of anything a defender would want, I just can't think of anything not laughably exploitable or doesn't try to "force" the issue by penalizing the defenders making evasion/inactivity that much more desirable. Basically nothing that reasonably leads to a positive outcome.

I agree. That's why I have said multiple times that the structures should not be mandatory, but provide some benefit so that the attackers voluntarily field them.


You make the structures drop something, but mostly the incentive is to damage your opponent. The current proposal for structures have some fittings dropping, but costly rigs are destroyed which seems like it could work although we will have to wait and see how it is balanced. The asset protection is going to remove much of the incentive to attack them for straight profit but hopefully the loss of the rig value will motivate the defenders to fight.

But wars are destructive plays to gain power in the sandbox, not necessarily to harvest resources from other corporation. Hurting your opponent and preventing them from generating more resources is the main goal of most wars, or to extort ISK from a corporation to not follow through with that destruction.

To me I think a way to fix war decs is to limit how many active war decs a corp / alliance can have, say at 20. Some have 50 - 70+ in active war decs. Make them pick and choose better on whom them war dec. And or to have more active war decs you currently have the most expensive it gets. Have all these mechanics that make a PVE / PVP person think about how to do it best. For a war dec, its usually just 50 mill per week no matter what. Since it is usually small corps / alliances and people that can't fight back that get war dec'd the most. Never saw the space honor in killing an exhumer or mission runner and claim its pvp

That makes no sense at all, but of course it is CODE, so to be expected, kids who get off popping a noob and claim its pvp

I never saw the space honor of killing an exhumer unless you are at war with them.

But what does honor have to do with PvP? Not much is the answer.

Wrong.

PvP is "player versus player", one player acting in opposition to another.

That is the only definition. So unless miners and haulers stopped counting as players recently, it is still PvP to kill them.