Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The wardecing alliance or corp has to have a highsec home system selected. When they wardec another alliance or Corp a structure appears in that system that is tied to the decced corp or alliance. If it its 120 different wars they are all tied to the same structure so there is not 100 different structures. The defenders then could entosis this structure and then basically the sov version would take over. Defenders could entosis and then after a fixed time go after nodes. If defender does not fight then war progresses the same as it does now.

No.

Wars are about players shooting players, not sov lasers.

This didn't need its own thread either. It's very similar to the other idea as you note.

Thank or the responses. In general what do you guys think the behavior of most of the defenders and deccers is right now.

Also wardec structure can be set to wardeccers prime nodes would come out in wardeccers prime much like the current sov system. This would or could cause defenders to undock and give them a purpose.

Before I start the current war dec system is broken but even the war dec players themselves cannot agree on what needs to be done so what follows are in fact simple comments and observations.

How do you as the aggressor get nothing out of this idea. If they want to entosis the structure to end the war they have to travel to YOUR home system and they have to sit in space in ships which make them vulnerable to being attacked and destroyed by YOU. So in reality instead of you having to go look for players to shoot this idea actually brings them to your front door.

Perhaps your problem is that the defenders may actually bring a fleet to accomplish this which would mean that you may have to fight a groupsof players that just might be able to defeat you and your corp. And to be honest if you and your corp of war dec players cannot or will not protect a simply structure such as this then your war should end early.

To the OP.
Having one structure that represents ALL wars a corp may declare adds too large of a burden on the attackers simply by virtue of the number of players that could band together so you need to go back and re-think that part.

You have not dealt with the current allies system either and if / when the war dec system transitions to a structure based war system we will need to significantly change or possibly even eliminate that system.

[quote=Scipio Artelius]

no thinly veiled null alt, you do not need another way to dec dodge.

jeasus lads at least try to mask the intentions a little ffs.

Could elaborate about how this is a way of dodging a wardec so you can add something of substance to the conversation.

Re-read what I wrote. I didn't write that they get nothing out of it, though I probably could have been clearer.

What I wrote was "...no countering mechanic to assist an attacker"

That is, in the OP's own words, this mechanic is designed to "...give the defenders a chance to end the wardec early" by sov lasering a structure.

Currently (at a very basic level):

Attacker: shoot other players
Defender: shoot other players

New mechanic:

Attacker: shoot other players
Defender: shoot other players, sov laser a structure

Where is the countering mechanic that keeps the risk balance the same as it is now?

For example (bad example follows), if the defender doesn't sov laser the structure, they are forced to pay the next weeks wardec fee, or the attacker gets to continue the war for free.

One mechanic introduced to provide an advantage to one group (eg. structure to allow defenders a way out), balanced by an opposite mechanic that also provides some advantage to the other group (eg. if defender fails to sov laser, then the war is free).

The free wardec continuation is not something I am proposing, just using it as an example of a mechanic that balances the proposal out.

At the moment, there is no balancing mechanic that also provides something for the attacker. The whole idea is designed to allow a defender to end a war, without even having to interact with the attacker to bring about an early end.

Allowing a corporation to isolate itself is the whole purpose of your proposal. You want to allow a corporation who wins a defined minigame to be immune to any further aggression from an opponent.

That is not in the cards.

Winning a nullsec entosis contest does not make you immune to your opponent, you just gain their sov. If you want to add some entosis mini-game to highsec because you think it will promote conflict, by all means make that proposal, but awarding some walls to players who win that game so that they can wall themselves off from the other players in this sandbox is not in keeping with the current development direction CCP is taking this game.

The only thing Citadels will do is provide attackers with more stuff to pop.
Most, if not all, wardec entities do not place structures in space.

Having a citadel as a defender does not give you incentive to fight, it give the deccers incentive to dec.
If they're unable to bash your Citadel, they don't care.

As stated, the only reason for the mechanic is to allow pew pew.
The vast majority of deccers don't want you to fight, they don't want you to be able to end the war, and they're not going to put up citadels for you to shoot at....
Citadels will probably make the one sided wardecs even worse because you'll now have a structure out in space that cannot be un-anchored and removed, giving them another reason to start a dec with nothing to which the defender can do about it because they cannot end the war, or the cost to surrender would be insane simply because they do not want you to surrender.
If you're able to destroy their entire fleet, 5 times over, it still won't end the war.

Citadels will also only help to make large defacing entities ever more prevalent, and coalitions will be formed by the larger dec entities for the sole sake of multiple decs on the same target so that they can all share in ensuring the bashing of a citadel.

Wardeccers heavily follow the mantra of risk aversion. If they cannot win with minimal losses, the will not fight. However, this only means that they will take further steps to ensure they win.
The current dec mechanic, with or without citadels, allows them to optimize this risk of aversion by reducing asset risks.
In other words, they do not have to present any risks upon themselves through a structure or even ships when they cannot dictate the outcome, and the current mechanic allows them to do so with no risk of loss of the war.

Wardecs already needed a change; citadels will only help to shine 20 spotlights on the problem, as opposed to 5.

Deccers keep saying "wait until citadels" because they know it presents only positive change for them.
A target asset that will always be vulnerable and the defender cannot stop them if they bring enough guns because they dictate the outcome and the defender cannot end their aggression.
CODE doesnt have enough guns to bash a Citadel? Well, time to have Marmite and whomever else join in on the fight!
Everyone gets the KM, so why wouldn't they share?